My Prop 8 Manifesto
Although I’m usually able to write a post fairly spontaneously as the thoughts come to me, this is one that I’ve been procrastinating for several weeks because it requires so much thought and tact in order for it to be effective instead of offensive. Before my guest stint is up here at FMH, I wanted to get in one last post because I have a feeling that many of you will be able to relate to it.
Another reason why I’d been procrastinating writing this post is that I know that most of us are sick to death of the Prop 8 debate and wish it would just go away. I sort of dread bringing it up again, I still don’t know exactly where I stand on gay marriage, and I’ve communicated with other Mormons who are in the same boat. The purpose of this post, however, is not to debate whether Prop 8 was right or wrong, but to focus on the future.
Even though I’m thousands of miles away from the drama of Prop 8, I feel very impacted by the whole issue. Lately I’ve been debating with myself about whether I should make a personal statement, a sort of “Prop 8 manifesto” about where I stand on the issue, and post it on my personal network of friends (some of whom are gay) in order to “clear the air,” or just remain silent and hope that it blows over. Perhaps it’s also a way for me to finally find some sort of inner peace in the matter.
First of all, who would my manifesto be directed to? Well, I guess it would be directed at the two groups that I feel like I’m standing in between: my gay friends (as well as gays in general) and the Church that I consider to be my spiritual home. I don’t entirely agree with either side, neither do I entirely disagree with either side. But I’m afraid that both sides may misinterpret my silence as meaning that I’m OK with how things unfolded.
So, here it goes:
To my friends who are gay or supported gay marriage:
First of all, I wish to issue an apology to those of you who have found yourselves to be the victims of true hatred and bigotry. I know that certain members of my faith and other religious persuasions have treated you unkindly, unfairly, and in a way that no Christian person should be able to legitimately justify. I have encountered comments by certain Mormons that make me cringe and I am sometimes ashamed to have to call them fellow members of my church.
I simply ask that you carefully consider how you apply the labels of “bigot” or “hate.” I have seen indications of these words being thrown around as ignorantly and as indiscriminately as those who label gay people as “perverts” or “sinners.”
Please understand that my religion is just as personal to me and as defining of who I am as your sexuality is to you. Although it is true that I am free to leave my religion if I please, physically leaving it would not mean that I would be able to just deny my faith, just as you would not able to deny your attraction towards the same sex. In many ways, I don’t feel that I chose my religion – it chose me, just as I’m sure you probably feel about your sexuality. If you have not experienced what it feels like to have a personal relationship with God, then you cannot understand exactly how it is – just as I cannot understand exactly what it’s like to be gay. In order for you to suggest that I am using my religion as a crutch or an excuse to hate homosexuals is just as unfair as it would be if I were to suggest that you chose to be gay or that you could be heterosexual if you really wanted to.
I wish to be honest. I personally believe that marriage is something that we do not need to redefine. I am perhaps too much of a traditionalist in this regard for those who disagree with me. But it is how I feel and it would quite possibly be enough to affect how I would vote on an issue such as Prop 8. However, I do not regard my personal views as a nullification of yours. I acknowledge that my personal belief is simply that: my personal belief and ideal. I have mine and you have yours.
I have given a great deal of thought to the issue of Prop 8 and I sympathize greatly with both sides. Obviously, I was not eligible to vote on Prop 8, but if I had been, I would most likely have refrained from voting on it. To be honest, YES and NO felt neither entirely right nor entirely wrong to me. I wish that there could have been some middle ground, but there wasn’t. I wish to state for the record that I personally oppose the explicit appeal to support Prop 8 by the leadership of my Church and its involvement in the YES on 8 campaign. I feel that it violated our policy of political neutrality and it troubles me greatly. However, this does not mean that I oppose Mormons campaigning as individuals or voting according to their personal conscience and convictions – even if this means that they voted YES.
I cannot apologize for our right as a church to teach and uphold the values that we believe in. Although I oppose the Church’s involvement in the Prop 8 campaign, I do not oppose our right to uphold the traditional definition of marriage as individuals. Contrary to what you may believe, we are not told to hate homosexuals. Neither do we teach that being homosexual is a choice, even though a few ignorant Mormons may attempt to spread this false belief. If what we teach in our churches translates into an influx of Mormons voting YES on 8, or others propositions like it, then this must be respected as it is how democracy works. People need to be allowed to vote their conscience and for most of us, our conscience is heavily influenced by our individual religious and spiritual experiences — just as your own conscience is heavily influenced by your own unique life experiences and even religious beliefs. You may feel that we defeated gay marriage, but in reality we have probably done nothing more than delay it. Out of respect for the democratic process, you are free to continue to campaign on behalf of your cause and to persuade more people to support gay marriage the next time another such referendum is organized.
To my friends who are Mormon, supported Prop 8, or who oppose gay marriage:
First of all, you need to understand that my opposition to the Church’s political involvement in the YES on 8 campaign does not automatically make me an apostate. I’ve struggled to understand the reasons why the LDS Church opposes gay civil marriage so adamantly and yet is silent on other “moral issues” that have such a huge impact on society, families and children. I’ve read the official statement from the Church and I’ve read countless arguments from supporters of Prop 8 as to why it was so important that gay marriage not become legal. Many of these “reasons” were not morally-based, but rather founded in the fear of legal implications gay marriage would have on the separation of church and state, our tax exempt status as a church, our right to perform marriages as a church, and how Mormons would be allowed to continue to practice freedom of religion. Most of these have been disputed by lawyers – even Mormon ones – and so these “reasons” appear to me to be at best speculation and at worst pure scare tactics by the YES on 8 side. Supporters of gay marriage have some very compelling reasons for why they believe that gay marriage should be legal and I sympathize with many of them. There is, however, one reason I have not been able to hop on the gay marriage bandwagon: although marriage has evolved over time, it has never been redefined in the sense that it has been between members of the same sex. Gay marriage is still in relative infancy in the few places on earth that it’s legal. We simply don’t know how or whether it will affect the traditional family long term. It may, or it may not, depending on who you believe. Both sides have “evidence” to defend their views.
In an official release, the Church leadership stated:
“Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church and work together for a better society.”
Notice that they said that “members need to be understanding and accepting of each other,” not that “members need to pressure and guilt-trip each other into agreeing with the Church’s official position.” We must remember that although the Church took an official position on Prop 8, an “official position” does not equal “official doctrine.” Although our official doctrine opposes any sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman, many Mormons are able to uphold the Church’s teaching on homosexuality while still opposing a constitutional ban on gay marriage. We also need to remember our history. Although the Church did not take an official stance, many Mormons – including General Authorities at the time – opposed the black civil rights movement in the 1960’s. To say that black civil rights and gay marriage are exactly the same thing is debatable. But to say that there are absolutely no parallels is, in my opinion, inaccurate. Some members during the 1960’s disagreed with Church leadership, the most prominent being George Romney, who was pressured by General Authorities to cease his involvement in the civil rights movement. Romney ignored this pressure and continued to be involved in the movement in a manner that did not jeopardize his membership in the Church. And now that we look back, it’s not difficult to see who was on the right side of history. To be fair, I need to mention that some of those Church leaders who opposed black civil rights later admitted that they were mistaken.
The First Presidency has also stated that:
“The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people. “
Unfortunately, a few Mormons have mistakingly believed that they fulfilled their “Christian obligations” by critcizing and cutting down homosexuals or members of the Church that sympathize with their cause, instead of by showing “love, kindness and humanity toward all people. “ I believe that these Mormons do not represent the majority, but it saddens me that there were any who participated in such behaviour. Sometimes, an insignificant number of people can do a significant amount of damage.
The Church urged that “(a)s Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.”
We need to ask ourselves whether we’ve really approached this issue with the utmost “respect for others” that should be expected of a people that often feels disrespected by the world and even fellow Christians. Have we, as individuals, taken the time to see things — as best we can — from the perspective of those we oppose, in order to have as much “understanding” as we possibly can, or have we quickly dismissed them? Have we been 100% “honest” in the way that we have run the Prop 8 campaign, or have we engaged in exagerration and scare tactics? Have we managed to treat those we disagree with – and even those who persecute and hate us – with “civility,” or do we hold to the “eye for an eye” philosophy?
Prop 8 has been voted on, it passed, and gay marriage was defeated in California, as well as in other states. Whether it’s deserved or not, we are getting the “credit” for the victorious YES on 8 campaign. As Mormons, we perhaps think that we have done our duty and can now relax, when in fact our job is just beginning. Now it’s time for damage control and focusing on building bridges.
Whether we are right or wrong on the issue of gay marriage is really quite irrelevant. Many people are very angry at us and things may get uglier, the persecution more intense, and the temptation to retaliate even stronger.
The question is: what are we going to do about it?
I would hope that no church members find themselves in the position of promoting or condoning sin. This would not end up well for anyone at that great and last day.
Comment by Phil Johnson — November 22, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Phil:
Prop 8 has nothing to do with promoting or condoning sin… I’m a pro-8 person, and I don’t care what people do in their personal lives. For me it’s all about the dilution of the concept of “family.”
There’s no law that people who sin can’t marry. If that were so, none of us could marry.
Comment by sare — November 22, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
sorry, that was a little unclear. What I meant was , there should never be a law that people who sin can’t marry. If there were such a law, then none of us could marry.
Comment by sare — November 22, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
The Church has never said it is strictly neutral — it continues to maintain that it reserves the right to speak out on moral issues.
Comment by queuno — November 22, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
“The Church has never said it is strictly neutral — it continues to maintain that it reserves the right to speak out on moral issues.”
Teaching against homosexuality and/or gay marriage is “speaking out on moral issues.” I’m OK with that. Explicitly telling members how to vote is flirting dangerously with political neutrality, which the Church does claim.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 22, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
The Corporation of the Presidency said, as you quote: “Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church and work together for a better society.”
However, they gave explicit permission for Mormons to vote for their conscience only AFTER the vote had passed–Nov. 5th to be exact. I think this statement is simply dissembling. I’m calling them out on it. Why did they not say it prior to the vote, when it would have allowed Mormons to vote their conscience in good faith, rather than feeling that they were going against the prophets?
I confess, I’m just getting more angry. Belly breaths.
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
I appears that my family is one of those that is being torn apart by this. Not happy.
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Thank you for this post, FaithfulDissident. You’ve said many things that I’ve been thinking over the past weeks, and said them more eloquently than I could hope to.
Comment by Lindsay — November 22, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
This is an incredibly well-written post. I hope the comments focus on what it says, rather than dissolving into just another verbal fight. That would be ironic and disheartening, given the actual post.
Comment by Ray — November 22, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
I’m not a big fan of heavy handed gov’t.
I’d rather see changes be driven by the market. Big companies who value their employees should make insurance available to gay partners. . . changes like that.
Comment by me — November 22, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
But me, those insurance benefits are still treated differently than those of married couples in that they are taxed at the federal level. Similarly, it’s a taxable event when one partner leaves a house to the other partner, resulting in, some cases, in quite a high tax bill which means the surviving partner has to move, unlike the tax rights of married couples–no tax burden.
This is the problem. Oh, and partners don’t have the right of hospital visitation–big problem if you’re in an accident in a state (like Utah) that doesn’t recognize any rights between same sex partners.
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
djinn, I’m puzzled that you (and others) interpret the first presidency statement as giving “permission” for Mormons to vote no on 8. If you read it carefully, it doesn’t say that at all. It merely acknowledges the fact that some Mormons will, in fact, choose to vote how they want regardless of what church leaders say. I don’t think the statement does anything to overturn the idea that loyal members have a duty to put aside their own feelings and support the church’s position.
Comment by kodos — November 22, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
While I am not against gay marriage, I am worried about the ramifications it could have on my children. I am worried about what they will be taught in school. And I am worried that they will feel they need to question their sexuality at a young age because they are presented with that choice in schools.
However I do sympathize with gays who wish to marry. I understand why they feel the way they do. And I certainly do not feel hatred towards them simply because they are gay.
As far as the church’s involvement: I feel like they made their position clear, and while they may have urged members to vote based on that position, members were still given the choice. No one had their temple reccommed revoked because of how they voted,
What are we going to do about it? At this point, I feel like all we can do is protect our own families as well as we can. Teach what we want taught in our homes. And quit making it an US vs THEM issue! I wish I knew the middle ground. I wish I knew how legal gay marriage would impact the traditional family unit. I don’t, so I don’t know the perfect solution.
Comment by Kasi — November 22, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
What does the future hold for Prop 8?
1) Will the California Supreme Court reverse its own ruling in May and uphold Prop 8?
similar to what happened to Justice Rose Bird in 1968?
2) Does the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution make Prop 8 Invalid?
3) Do gays already have the same rights to marry - i.e. to a partner of the opposite ?
4) Will the LDS Church be required to rescind the Proclamation on the Family - which forms the basis for its opposition to Gay Marriage?
5) What do the report from the mission field look like? Are they seeing more animosity? Or are they encountering people who admire the church for taking a stand on morality and were disappointed that their own church did not stand up for morality?
6) Will Prop 8 opponents put their own ballot initiative up in California in June 2010 and we will have to wage this battle all over again?
7) Will the California Christian Right organize an ballot effort to impeach judges that overturn Prop
9) How come Arizona and Florida is not challenging their gay marriage prohibitions that passed at that same time as Prop 8?
There are a lot of questions here.
Comment by Roland — November 22, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
loyal members have a duty to put aside their own feelings and support the church’s position
I voted “yes”, and I am happy to have done so, because it has forced the Supreme Court to involve itself in the question yet again. I believe that when all is said and done, the S.C. will overturn it, and by doing so, will put the issue to death once and for all.
If Prop 8 had failed, the “yes on 8″ people would keep coming back, year after year, putting it on the ballot again and again, just the way the “parental abortion notification” proposition keeps resurfacing.
Now, the question is: since God knows now what the Supreme Court is going to decide, and if they do overturn Prop 8, will that mean that God really did want Prop 8 to pass in order to kill it?
Comment by Mark N. — November 22, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
Roland: “How come Arizona and Florida is not challenging their gay marriage prohibitions that passed at that same time as Prop 8?”
There’s more heat on the issue in California because SSM was legal for a short time–and something to the tune of 18,000 same-sex couples were married.
Re: Prop 8 Manifesto–
I don’t think it’s wrong for the church to ask it’s members to do all they can (and that’s what was requested: an unqualified “Do all you can”) to support what it feels is a moral imperative–even if that means crossing over into the political arena. Morality has always had a funny way of doing that.
Comment by Jack — November 22, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
Kodos: “I’m puzzled that you (and others) interpret the first presidency statement as giving “permission” for Mormons to vote no on 8. If you read it carefully, it doesn’t say that at all. It merely acknowledges the fact that some Mormons will, in fact, choose to vote how they want regardless of what church leaders say. I don’t think the statement does anything to overturn the idea that loyal members have a duty to put aside their own feelings and support the church’s position.”
I would have to look long and hard to find a statement to disagree with, from any of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve, made in General Conference.
That said, I do not believe it is ever permissable for a member of the Church to “put aside their own feelings and support the church’s position”, unless they feel they are so mired in sin as to be unable to access the influence of the Spirit, and therefore cannot trust their own judgment.
Remember that the Angel Moroni did not appear to Joseph Smith because young Joseph was so righteous, but because Joseph recognized that he was a sinner.
Know for yourself.
Comment by Matthew Chapman — November 22, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Kasi, all children are taught, in an anti-bullying context, is that there are many different kinds of families, and children that come from all these families deserve respect. Why do you find this frightening? Do you expect your children to treat kids from same-sex homes with derision and scorn, or worse?
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
djiin, I certainly do NOT expect my children to treat kids from same sex home with derision and scorn. I would never want them to be anything but accepting towards them. I have many gay friends and family members, and have never taught my children that they are any different than us or that they should be treated differently and certainly not badly. My children are too young to understand anyway, but as they grow older I hope to teach them tolerance and acceptance of others.
What I am worried about is that my children will be taught about same sex marriage at too young an age. I don’t want my five year old to be taught about homosexuality in school in a setting that promotes it as a good choice. I don’t want my elementary aged children wondering if they’re gay or not simply because it’s presented as an option. And I don’t want to be pressured to teach it at home before they are ready simply to do it before they are taught it at school.
For all I know, this won’t be an issue. But they will basically be learning in school that their church is wrong, gay marriage is not wrong. THAT is what I am worried about.
Comment by Kasi — November 22, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
I need to clarify that they are too young to understand homosexuality, not acceptance or tolerance. I hope that I have already taught them that.
Comment by Kasi — November 22, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
Oh, and faithfuldissident, it doesn’t matter how sweetly you dress up your vote–you vote (or how you would have voted, given the chance) to take away actual civil rights from a group based on their group identity, you are behaving as a bigot. Your actions, not that ephermeral ideal, your thoughts, are what matter. Just deal. Embrace your bigothood. Besides, there’s lots of Evangelicals who agree with you. On this issue, and not a single other one.
Even though this discussion deals with CA, which has special characteristics, in that gays can have civil unions, that hasn’t kept the Mormon church from supporting every single law to deny gay people any rights, starting in 1992 with a Colorado law to deny any discrimination protection for LGBT people, on to 1998 laws in Alaska and Hawaii, which the actual Mormon church donated $500,000 and $600,000 respectfully to add explicit denials of gay marriage to the two states’ constitutions, the 2004 vote in Utah that explicitly disallowed any sort of civil union for gay people…..now California. Feel the love.
Oh, and the Mormon church only embraces homosexuals to the extent that they live celibate lives forevermore. Not realistic. “We don’t hate you unless you want a normal life” would be much closer to the truth. How can you expect that of anyone? It’s not a choice gay men and woman make, unlike, say, Catholic clergy (and look how well that’s worked out for them) Rather, it is imposed on them. I would say all the talk of “love” is just, uh, PR.
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Kasi, but your two ideas are contradictory; all that was ever taught in Mass. was that some families (Kings!) include two fathers. You are saying, as far as I can tell, that A) you want your kids taught that this is a very bad idea, but B) they will be tolerant of the horrible sinners in their midst. I don’t think it works that way. Besides, some kids do have two fathers or two mothers, and your children do or will understand this; there’s no other message involved. You want them to hate the sin (two dads/moms) but accept the sinner (the child involved?) Good luck with that. Remember, one of Matthew Shephard’s killers was a Mormon boy.
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
Kasi, the world doesn’t think coffee or tea drinking is wrong; same with smoking and drinking; but presumably it is up to you to teach them the difference between “the world” and what you believe. Why is this any different?
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
I think it is perfectly acceptable to hate the sin but love the sinner. My father is an alcoholic and drug addict. I hate the sin. I hate the drug use, the alcohol abuse. I love my dad. My sister in law is gay. Because of my religious views I hate that she lives with her partner. But she is one of my favorite all time people and I love her dearly.
And by the way, the child involved is certainly not the “sinner” in your scenario. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I’m not saying I have all the answers. I have strong religious beliefs and want to raise my children in the LDS church. So sometimes it is hard to know what is right or wrong or best.
Comment by Kasi — November 22, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
djinn, that is a good point. (#23) I just want to have control over when I teach things to them.
Comment by Kasi — November 22, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
djinn, let’s please not start falling back on the “you’re a bigot” card. That’s been played to death on other threads. When we start flinging “bigot” around, how can the conversation go anywhere - and how can we define it in such a way that it doesn’t apply just as well to our own comments as to others? I can take just about any pejorative and make it mean just about whatever I want it to mean.
The two main definitions of bigot straight from the dictionary:
1) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
2) One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Go back and re-read the comments thus far in this thread, and ask yourself whose comments fit those descriptions best. There are a few on each side, but faithful dissident’s post is one of the shining examples of NOT being bigoted, based on the actual definition.
Comment by Ray — November 22, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
But Kasi, your desire to have control over what you teach your children (which you already have) seems to include forcing those who do not share your religious beliefs to, uh, participate in your religious beliefs. We’re a secular society. No one’s religious beliefs rule, in a perfect world. Of course, in the south, teachers occasionally feel that it’s just peachy to tell Mormon kids that they are going to hell, but, thank goodness, the Supreme court thinks this is a step too far.
Your desire to teach your kids that children of same sex couples are (some word other than evil) is similar to the Baptist teacher in the Supreme court case I posted who told her Mormon students they were going to hell. We’re a secular society. Teach them what you believe at home. Don’t destroy families in the here and now because of poorly thought out and barely articulated fears.
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
No it’s not, Ray; what it is is a beautiful, well-written post which still determines to deny people basic civil rights based on their membership in a group whom the poster dislikes.
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Kasi, if you want that much control over your children, perhaps you should pull them from school. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about them knowing someone who had two mothers.
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
Kasi, as this is an issue (your children being exposed to lifestyles which you disagree) whether or not same sex marriage is allowed, disallowed, or whaterver. Danger all around. Flee. Flee. Look, hills, over there!
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
djiin, you keep making comments about me not wanting my kids to know other kids who have 2 mothers or 2 fathers. I’m pretty sure I never mentioned that being one of my concerns. I’m not worried about them being friends with those children, or as they grow older friends with people are gay.
Comment by Kasi — November 22, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
But Kasi, then why the fear of equal rights for same sex couples if you’re not afraid of them?
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
OK, Kasi, why then do you believe that the mere mention that some families consist of two mommies or two daddies (which presumably your children already know given your family situation) puts such fear in your heart? Such that an entire group of people get denied the right to marry? Why?
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
Well, here I am, back again like bad indigestion. The non-mormon feminist who joined her partner of 12 years in holy matrimony in California pre November 4th. As old as this topic seams to be, I new the minute that prop 8 passed, like any civil liberty denied from our history, would also keep re-appearing, just like bad indigestion, up for debate until the Federal Supreme Court rules that Gays can legally marry in all States. That’s just how it works and has always worked.
What I think the FaithfulDesendent and others who post keep avoiding is the churches philosophy ( and I mean many churches not just the Mormon Church) that promoting the merging of church and State is okay when it comes to prop 8. Why is it that no one who is pro prop 8 ever addresses this?
The Mormon leaders specifically addressed Prop 8 and brought it to their people through the pulpit. They involved their congregation. This single action asked them to make a legal stand using the churches moral stand through a yes vote. So I would truly love to hear from the people on this blog courageous enough to address it your feelings on the the separation of church and State and how it applies to Prop 8.
Since the State of CA does not find being Gay illegal, morally or otherwise, please keep this in mind when making your argument.
Comment by Debbie — November 22, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
djinn, please step back and re-read the comments. You are now making multiple charges that simply aren’t warranted by the comments you are citing. There is nothing whatsoever in anything Kasi has written that justifies charges of homophobia. It just isn’t there.
You know how much I like you, and it pains me to read comments that, without attribution, I would think were being written by she for whom the magic slippers might have been named. I know how deeply personal and emotional this is for you, but these broadsides are killing any possibility of constructive conversation.
Comment by Ray — November 22, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
It doesn’t, Debbie, and it never has. Churches have expressed their beliefs on issues they felt to be moral in nature since the founding of this country. As bluntly as I can put this, I find it highly ironic that the argument you are espousing is the ONLY argument being made on either side that effectively would silence organized opposition to a particular belief. The Church has never said that organized gay rights groups can’t express their beliefs about gay marriage; only the view you are touting essentially says, “Shut up. You should have no voice in a democracy - even though your believers are part of that democracy.”
Separation of church and state originally meant the separation of an organized religion being established as the Federal Church; for decades after the ratification of the Constitution, every state in the Union except PA had an official state religion. I’m glad that changed, but the separation of church and state has NEVER meant the silence of religion as to political issues - and your insistence that it does only gives validity to the fears of others that gay rights activists really are trying to silence them.
I am open to finding ways to achieve full political and civil equality for homosexual unions, but telling me my church can’t express its doctrinal view of what it considers to be a moral issue raises flags even for me. Can you understand why?
Comment by Ray — November 22, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Ray,
I think that you are being way to harsh on djinn. When someone is afraid that their child will learn about gay marriage, it is safe to assume that they are in disagreement with those relationships and feel that homosexuality is not normal. Wouldn’t this be a safe assumption? I guess you would need to look up the definition of homophobia to understand this.
Comment by Debbie — November 22, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
Ray, this is what Kasi said, in her own words: “What I am worried about is that my children will be taught about same sex marriage at too young an age. I don’t want my five year old to be taught about homosexuality in school in a setting that promotes it as a good choice. I don’t want my elementary aged children wondering if they’re gay or not simply because it’s presented as an option. And I don’t want to be pressured to teach it at home before they are ready simply to do it before they are taught it at school.
For all I know, this won’t be an issue. But they will basically be learning in school that their church is wrong, gay marriage is not wrong. THAT is what I am worried about.”
She is saying, and I quote: “I don’t want my five year old to be taught about homosexuality in school in a setting that promotes it as a good choice” that any mention of homosexuality, such as in the context of a kid who has two parents of whom sex Kasi disagrees is anything but wrong wrong wrong wrong.
As far as I can tell, and Kasi, let me know if I’m wrong, that she somehow thinks that being Gay (and Mormon and reviled at every step, and at a very high risk for suicide) is a choice, and that hearing about it (in the context of a classmate whose parents are of the same sex) will infect her five year old with some sort of Gay virus. Puleeease.
Besides, Kasi, why do you feel that the school system, which must teach Unitarian, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, etc. kids must teach the set of values that 2% of the California populace have, i.e., that of Mormons?
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
djinn, there are millions and millions of people in this country who want to be able to teach their children about sex when they feel they are old enough to understand. There is no fear that is tied to homophobia in that position; there is nothing in that desire that expressed homophobia.
You called her homophobic simply because she wants to be the one to teach her children about sex? Sorry, I just don’t see it - especially when she also says that she wants to teach her children to play with and love those who are gay. I also don’t want sex ed of any kind taught in kindergarten, so I guess I’m also a bigoted homophobe.
Not everyone who doesn’t want to call gay unions “marriages” is a bigoted homophobe. At least, that’s my perspective, so if you disagree let’s say it and drop it. Once someone has been called a bigoted homophobe, nothing they say makes any difference, so I’ll bow out, as well. There’s nowhere left to go once that label is applied.
Comment by Ray — November 22, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
Many of us LDS in California were prepared mentally to see Prop 8 to get defeated. We also are keenly aware that either the state or federal supreme court could overturn it for a number of reasons. (And will the state supreme court overturn its own ruling from last May?)
The call from the pulpit was win or lose - it is important for the Church of God to be heard on this very important moral issue. Moral truths come from God and are not set because the courts say so or the voters say so.
Comment by Roland — November 22, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
Debbie, please don’t be condescending and juvenile. I know what homophobia means, and that definition fits my argument - not yours:
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
There is nothing whatsoever in Kasi’s comments that exhibits “fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.” She is concerned about the AGE at which her children are taught about sexual relationships and who teaches them. She wants to teach them, and she has stated openly and clearly that she wants to teach them to embrace and love and associate with lesbians and gay men. That’s not homophobia, at least not according to the dictionary.
Comment by Ray — November 22, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Kasi, congratulations - you are today’s resident punching bag.
FD, nice post. I almost didn’t read it because I am very tired of this issue, but I am glad I did.
I have thought about this question a lot. It is amazing to go back and read conference talks from October and see how they were preparing us for this time, particularly Elder Ballard’s and Elder Packer’s.
Comment by Stephanie — November 22, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Oh, and Ray, I really appreciate your compliment “you know how much I like you.” Perhaps more than you know. I had no idea until yesterday; I assumed, wrongly, that you considered me a nuisance, like the huge bulk of my huge Mormon family; but I, unlike them, am loud and argumentative,and Female, and good at math, and bad at all the things good Mormon girls are supposed to be good at, except cooking, where I am so good that it is seen as an affront; as you have probably noticed, and I love them so much it hurts, even those who treat me like ****, and has hurt for the last forty years (actually 39 1/2 years); but I cannot save themselves from themselves, no matter how much I try.
And this anti-gay movement on the part of the Mormon church is not a good idea; families which I’m sure couldn’t afford it gave so much, and for what? To draw the equivalent of three big red-colored concentric circles on their chest for those of the population who believe in greater acceptance (to quote an apt far side cartoon–one deer talking to anothe deer–bummer of a birthmark, phil (hint, 60 plus of those 30 and under5) and to continue being used and hated by the evangelicals, which are happy to have the Mormons draw the bulk of the anger?
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Btw, I really am done. There’s nowhere left to go here, which is too bad given the post to which these comments are attached.
Take your shots; call me whatever you want to call me; the floor is yours.
Comment by Ray — November 22, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
djinn, I will mention how much I love the Far Side - and that one in particular is classic. Almost as good as “the real reason dinosaurs became extinct” and “when potato salad goes bad”. If you recognize those pictures, you are my hero - despite our disagreement on this post.
Comment by Ray — November 22, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
why do you feel that the school system, which must teach Unitarian, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, etc. kids must teach the set of values that 2% of the California populace have, i.e., that of Mormons?
A valid question, I think, since the state (of California, at least), which runs the CA public school system, has long since decided that there is nothing inherently immoral, or wrong, about homosexuality.
I do have a question, however, relating to the Federal Government. Do certain Federal jobs, for example: certain FBI positions, still refuse to hire homosexuals? I don’t know at all if this is the case, but given that “don’t ask, don’t tell” still exists in the military (at least, I think it does), I’m just wondering about other Federal jobs.
Comment by Mark N. — November 22, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
I recognize them all, Ray; my point is that Kami has an irrational fear; she is afraid that her kids will be taught about homosexuality, but all the examples are of children being taught that kids come from a variety of families. She has agreed that this is fine. So, there is no actual disagreement. Execpt that word that I mentioned earlier and will not repeat. I know you are a decent person, a tremendously decent Person, Ray. I feel our disagreement is the result of lousy communication skills on my part. Drat. Sigh. I’m stepping away from my computer; besides, it’s awfully late in the mysterious middle of the US where you hail from. Goodnight, sleep tight.
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
Hal. It’s Hal who has a bummer of a birthmark.
The rest of it? Too depressing to even begin.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 22, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
I apologize for that impression, djinn. I admire you and your passion about this greatly (truly and sincerely). I am sorry I didn’t make that clearer MUCH earlier.
Comment by Ray — November 22, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
Good night, sleep tight, m’ladty. I’d blow you a kiss, but it might be misunderstood by others.
Comment by Ray — November 22, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
When I first saw this website I was a little confused. I grew up in a heavy LDS area and most of the Mormons were not as accepting. I am a very liberal gay man now in college. The outcome of Proposition 8 has fueled me to be a gay rights activist.
Your Prop 8 Manifesto has impressed me. It has given me new perspective and hope. I like how you address both sides and tell your honest opinions about both. It is also enlightening to see how you feel about the labels “bigot” and “hate.” I hope to work with people like you in the future. Thank you.
Comment by Jaikey — November 22, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Ray, this particular issue is creating a huge amount of pain for people I love, completely separate from anything I feel, which I would never in a gazillion years talk to them about, so yes, it breaks my heart completely separately from how I feel about the issue. In fact, I probably would give it a pass except for the collateral damage that is accruing in my family. Can’t think of any apt Far side cartoons, although there is a New Yorker cartoon of one snail talking to another, saying “I don’t care if she is a tape dispenser, I love her.”
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
That’s sweet, Ray; we’re both too completely Monogamous to be anything but charmed.
Comment by djinn — November 22, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
As a California resident and parent of a 5 year old, I can report that the passing of prop 8 had no effect at all on stopping the discussion of gay and lesbian parents in an accepting way at school.
when the kids drew their family portraits and talked about who’s in them, the legality of each living arrangement didn’t come up, but warm discussions of 2 moms, step moms, foster moms, and godmothers sure did. so, way to go, yes on 8, for keeping gay marriage out of kindergarten. if only all the kids there had one mom and one dad, you’d have had a shot at making it seem like the other families didn’t exist among us. but they do, in every class my kids have had so far.
Comment by cchrissyy — November 22, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
yes, it was just this week, so after prop 8 passed.
My 5 year old was already familiar with real-life SSM families but he came home form school a bit confused about what a “godmother” is.
So we talked it over
Comment by cchrissyy — November 22, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
Exactly. Thanks, cchrissyy.
Comment by djinn — November 23, 2008 @ 12:19 am
This is what I know 40 states out of 50 prohibit SSM. The smart Gay people are the ones that approached the FP in SLC and asked them to help with getting civil unions in Utah. Time to put up or shut up. Even if the church just reiterates that they are not opposed will send a consistent message.
What I don’t know is why this is only an issue in California. 39 other states have already decided how they stand so what California decides will not automatically or even likely be adopted by any of these other states. Do gay activists really believe they can terrorize people into submission prior to the next vote or stage of this struggle? Does anyone actually believe they have stopped or slowed any immoral conduct? If civil unions are OK and legal and are treated the same under the law as marriages then does that stop schools from discussing same sex couples?
Comment by Jerry — November 23, 2008 @ 12:27 am
Ray, in your defense of Kasi’s fears. Your a very smart man and know full well that they don’t teach sex in elementary schools. Why would it be assumed that if Gay people pertained the right to marriage that gay sex would be taught in school? They don’t teach straight sex! This is a fear based distortion and you serve no one by fanning this flame.
Ray, you quite often jump in to the defense of a person, more often a woman, (one who’s views strangely mirrors yours) pointing fingers, acting like the moral monitor of the blog, very partriarcle and quite frankly in so doing, insult the url of this blog as well as the strength of the woman you are defending.
I can cut and paste the definition of homophobia as well as you, except I wouldn’t have cut out the more kinder and lengthier version as you did to support your claim that it only has one narrow description. My definition: Homophobic: One who is uncomfortable with the topic of Gay relationships.
Comment by Debbie — November 23, 2008 @ 12:43 am
Debbie, I have to defend Ray. He has a much more nuanced view than you give him credit for; most likely because you have not read his statements where he advocates for civil unions for all couples, with the religious aspect of marriage being granted by a separate religious ceremony. He’s a mensch. Really.
Comment by djinn — November 23, 2008 @ 12:53 am
djinn
Often times I see eye to eye with you and often times I don’t see eye to eye with Ray. That’s okay. This is one of those times when I feel Ray is using very harmful assumptions.
Comment by Debbie — November 23, 2008 @ 12:58 am
I don’t advocate for civil unions. I want to be married. That is what I grew up with, it is part of my traditions and I should have that right. “Separate and Equal” is not a fair shake for me. It separates me out from my fellow humans.
Comment by Debbie — November 23, 2008 @ 1:01 am
I’ve read many of your posts for the past month, but have never left a comment.
I wanted to mention, from the original post, the invitation to marriage equality advocates: “Out of respect for the democratic process, you are free to continue to campaign on behalf of your cause and to persuade more people to support gay marriage the next time another such referendum is organized.”
I want to call attention to the wording of the the ballot itself. In it’s very title, prop. 8 “eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples.” The initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. What the Court will consider sometime next year is that this is not part of a democratic process, least of all a respectful one, at least not our democratic process. I presume the proposition will not be upheld.
It seems a commonly held belief that these things can just be put to a vote: majority rules, but such a thing would defeat the purpose of having a Constitution in the first place. A majority vote can’t strip rights from a minority, or next time we could put to a vote a proposition to eliminate the rights of Mormons to own property, and raise $20 million to get it passed.
I’m obviously opposed to Prop. 8, but I respect 100% the Mormon Church’s right to teach and uphold the values that you believe in. I would never dream of challenging your personally held beliefs or personal choices. But removing the rights of others to make different choices just cannot be right. Nor does removing the freedom to practice the religions of other churches who don’t share your beliefs and do sanctify same-sex marriages.
(And 30 states have legislated same-sex marriage bans, not 40.)
Comment by Alex M — November 23, 2008 @ 1:25 am
Pew Research poll shows:
By nearly two-to-one, more Americans oppose (59%) than favor (32%) legalizing gay marriage. This reflects something of a backlash from polls conducted earlier in the year, before the Supreme Court’s ruling in June that struck down state laws against sodomy. In a July survey shortly after that decision, the public opposed gay marriage by a smaller margin (53%-38%).
Strong opposition to the idea of gay marriage is the plurality position. Among those who oppose the idea, nearly six-in-ten say they feel strongly about it (35% of the total population express this view.) Among those who favor gay marriage, fewer than three-in-ten say they strongly support the proposal (9% of the total.)
I’d say it is a very loud 9% screaming for this. I would bet after watching the pathetic near riots of those those that are targeting individuals for their beliefs that the next poll will show even less support. The pew poll shows almost half the people polled do not feel strongly about SSM. That tends to shift when the see vandalism and people being attacked. Even if most proponents of SSM are courteous and civil that is not the image that is coming out of California.
Comment by Sick of 8 — November 23, 2008 @ 2:30 am
I would also add to this (I am a Mormon who voted No on 8 without hesitation, for full disclosure):
Yes on 8 people–don’t feel like victims because the church is getting the brunt of criticism and even hateful retaliation. When the church steps into the political ring, it has to fully step into the ring. This is what happens in politics.
No on 8 people–you will never change anyone’s hearts by yelling, screaming or terrorizing (sending powder to temples–what was that supposed to do?). You got out campaigned. Get things together and move forward with a plan.
I think everyone needs to TRY to understand each other’s point of view. I am in that strange place where I DO understand both sides. Where I was afraid to admit my opposition to Prop 8 to church people before the election (that “not everyone will agree” statement would have been nice BEFORE the election), I now feel afraid to offer an explanation of why so many of my dear friends voted for Prop 8. It would be so much easier to be angrily on one side or the other. Then only half of my friends would think I am a bigot sympathiser/apostate.
Comment by InCal — November 23, 2008 @ 2:32 am
FD, thank you for this thoughtful and well-written post.
How to go forward from here?
If we can step way back and look at this in a very general way, the issue revolves around what place homosexual people should have in this society and in this church. Whereas civil constitutions, legal codes, theological systems and scriptural canons all developed over the centuries without gay people living openly in society, we now find ourselves in a situation where a significant portion of society refuse to live dishonest, closeted, secret lives, and the social, civil and religious paradigms of the past did not anticipate the reality of today’s world. Just as Darwin shattered our worldview regarding creation, even so, the emergence of sexual diversity as a natural portion of that creation begs us to ask the question, where do gays, lesbians, transgendered and intersexed beings fit in our worldview? what place should they have in society? In the church? In civil matters?
I believe our worldview continues to evolve. We have even witnessed a gradual change in perception over the past few years among LDS leaders regarding the matter of homosexuality. Given that the sexual revolution of the 60’s and recent social and biological science has brought us a new, albeit imperfect, understanding of human sexuality, we must ask, can our civil constitutions, legal codes, theological systems and scriptural canons accommodate a different worldview?
Comment by Steven B — November 23, 2008 @ 3:01 am
I like the way my country does things. Gay marriage isn’t legal, and I don’t think it should be, but we do have the option of a “civil union” which is available to anyone, straight or gay, to give you the same legal rights as a married couple (i think) but without you actually getting married.
Comment by Ali — November 23, 2008 @ 3:33 am
I think it took until around comment #65 to see anyone really begin to even address the question that I ended the post with.
As I said, whether we agree or disagree with Prop 8 is now fairly irrelevant. We now have to focus on building bridges and how are we going to do that?
That is what this discussion should revolve around.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 23, 2008 @ 4:07 am
Seems like we would reach a quicker resolution to this issue if the great majority of people on both sides who truly want to “get along” would support legislation that would:
1) Provide strong protection to religious organizations from activist lawsuits that try to leverage existing anti-discrimination laws against them on the issue of marriage.
2) Guarantee that parents will be notified and have the option to withdraw young children from classroom situations where gay marriage is presented as if it’s just another option for everyone to consider (as opposed to being presented as a special privilege granted to a small percentage of the population with special needs).
Opponents of Prop 8 have said repeatedly that existing California law already provides these protections. What would be so hard about strengthening and clarifying those laws even further so that all families and religious organizations feel truly confident that they won’t have to go to court to repeatedly to protect their beliefs and rights of as parents ?
Comment by BrentW — November 23, 2008 @ 4:35 am
FD, just wanted to say thanks so much for this post. I’m not in the US, and we have had civil unions (not marriages) here for several years now, but I am completely perplexed as to why California, why the ‘vote as you wish’ statement didn’t make it out of Church offices before voting day, why on so many things.
As for where to, now? I have no idea. Looking at the situation from afar, I see one self congratulatory side holing themselves up (metaphorically, but for all I know literally too) in the mountains, and the other side increasingly angry and bitter; I see little reaching out between the two. It is a mess.
Comment by Anne — November 23, 2008 @ 7:41 am
#68 BrentW, I like your suggestions and I think they sound reasonable.
#69 Anne mentioned civil unions. I think that we, as a Church, can do more to “negotiate.” I’m not suggesting that we suddenly all change our minds and proclaim gay marriage to be OK, or that we completely rewrite our theology or Church policies on homosexuality. However, could we not do more to make sure that civil union laws are put in place to provide for the needs and protection of gay couples? The Church says it supports civil unions for gays, and yet I’ve read that the Church worked against such laws being put in place in Utah. Seems like we want to have our cake and eat it too. Can anyone shed some more light on this?
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 23, 2008 @ 9:04 am
Brent read 54 and 55. Your concern for the chilldren is easily the weakest argument for 8. This amendment did not address that. Yes it would be wise to get that legislated.
Comment by sick of 8 — November 23, 2008 @ 10:00 am
I think what bothered me most about prop 8 was that it was sold as a way to protect traditional marriage and family.
Really?
Why then isn’t the church proposing amending the constitution to outlaw alcoholic beverages? If we did, more than half (perhaps as many as 90 %) of fatal traffic accidents would disappear. How many marriages have ended over alcohol abuse? How many jobs lost? How many children have been beaten and abused by drunken fathers and mothers? How many women have been beaten and killed by drunken men? How many girls have been date raped or taken advantage of by men plying them with alcohol? The cost to society is STAGGERING. And I dare anyone here to tell me that the impact of alcohol isn’t at least 10,000 times more significant on marriage and family than allowing gays to marry could ever even hope to be (particularly because nobody can even articulate how they even think that might happen).
Likewise, pornography. How many marriages have been destroyed by porn addictions? Tens of thousands? Millions? I don’t know, but I personally know of several. Why isn’t the church trying to amend the constitution to ban porn forevermore? Surely this too has 10,000 times the negative consequences on traditional marriage and family. Why wasn’t prop 8 about porn? Or alcohol?
My own first marriage ended in part because my spouse was out of control with credit cards. Why don’t we amend the constitution to outlaw credit card debt? How many marriages and families would THAT keep intact? Hmmm?
It seems this is more about gay sex, and a rather lame attempt at trying to keep it “sinful”, since we keep framing the whole discussion of homosexuality as “gays are ok as long as they are celibate” along with “single heteros can’t have sex either”, the obvious difference being that MARRIED heteros can have sex, and therefore allowing gays to marry would also make homo sex, er, um, okay too — oh, wait, we can’t have that!
Never mind that nowadays hetero couples also practice oral and anal sex too. So the only difference then is that it’s about making babies, right? Then sex in my 2nd marriage is a sin, because we are both now too old to have children?
Can anyone else here see why this whole thing really bothers me?
Comment by Rich — November 23, 2008 @ 11:53 am
I thought of an analogy that may help answer your question, FD. My younger sister has lived with a few different men. A couple of years ago, we had a family reunion at my house. Before the reunion, one of my SILs called and said, “You are not inviting [sister] to stay at your house are you? You know what she’ll be doing. You can’t allow that in your house. You can’t let your kids know what she does, etc. etc.” Well, of course I wasn’t going to invite all family members but one (particularly the one who is already sensitive from being treated so poorly by other family members like said SIL). I wasn’t exactly sure how I was going to handle it with my kids (they knew she had a boyfriend, but they didn’t yet know that she lived with him and slept in the same bed). So, we extended the invitation to everyone and planned a place for everyone to sleep. Although she knew she was invited, my sister ended up staying somewhere else to sleep. I think part of it was her being uncomfortable with all the family, and part of it was out of respect for our children (like how she covers up her naked lady tattoos when she sees my kids - not all of her tattoos - but just the ones that she knows would be offensive to my children), and part of it was that her boyfriend at the time was an alcoholic, so they left to drink somewhere else (he has since died of alcohol poisoning).
She’s coming to visit again today with her new live-in boyfriend. My sister and I have a pretty good relationship based on mutual respect (which, honestly, took a while to get to). For my part, I welcome and respect and love her just as she is, and she is an important person in my kids’ lives. They all love their aunt. She knows that I believe fornicating is a sin, but it doesn’t get in the way of our relationship. For her part, she is who is she and is not ashamed, but she also doesn’t flaunt it. She doesn’t hide anything to the adults, but she is very respectful of our children and how we want to raise them. It works for happy family dynamics.
I suspect that if both sides on Prop 8 treated each other with that kind of respect, we would find reconciliation much sooner.
Comment by Stephanie — November 23, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
re: 67 - 70
I agree that dialogue and negotiation is the way forward, but I see zero interest in that on either side at least here in the West.
The gay community simply does not believe that Mormons support any kind of legal protection for them whatsoever including even basic things like employment discrimination, public accomodation, etc. The statements released by the Church around Prop 8 are ambiguous at best, disingenuous at worst.
Look at the history!!! Sad to say, the second paragraph in comment #21 is completely accurate. There are so many horror stories.
So on the Mormon side, I would suggest that “building bridges” begins with acknowledging just how homophobic the past has been and doing something to reverse that. A few brave voices have been raised (Carol Lynn Pearson comes to mind), but until her attitude becomes more the norm it’s inevitable that gays will continue to perceive Latter-day Saints as their enemy. You can’t really blame them, given the history.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 23, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
I would also appreciate any advice on how to build bridges in marriages where prop 8 has sent spouses to seemingly opposite sides of a huge, deep crevasse. I was not prepared for the damage that voting differently on this issue has done to the relationship with my spouse.
Comment by anotherCAvoter — November 23, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Dear TheFaithfulDissident:
The Mormon Church had a patriarch, one of the many Joseph F Smiths, this one serving as church Patriarch from 1942-1946. He was, it is widely assumed, gay, and was gently released. Masturbation was also allowed during this period. From the late ’40’s on, the Church’s position as to same sex attraction (and masturbation) hardened–but it wasn’t until 1968 that “homosexual acts” appeared on the list of excommucable offenses, as far as I can tell, In 1976 “homosexuality,” no acts involved, became an excommunicable offense.
Spencer W. Kimball and Boyd L. Packer (little factories, anyone?) seemed to be the leaders in this whole movement to vilifying homosexuality, which is, as far as I can tell a modern invention, and occuring, by and large, in my lifetime.
I suspect prior to the modern era there was a much more gentle live and let live, and if possible just ignore, attitude. Besides, those old guys seemed so much sweeter than the current crop.
When Gays became more prominent, the Mormon church was on the cutting edge of working to keep any rights from accruing to such people. The actual Corporation of the Presidency donated $500,000 (out of a total of $600,000) to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment in Alaska, sucessfully, and spent $600,000 to pass a similar law in Hawaii.
In 2004, the Mormon church was firmly behind the successful amendment that stripped gay couples of all rights. [Source, Deseret News.]
Now, the Mormon church (or rather, its members after quite a bit of prompting) has spent, estimates differ, upwards of $20 Million dollars to strip marriage rights from gay couples.
I detect a pattern. And it’s not toward healing.
Healing? Ray has it right. Civil unions all around. This would remove the civil portion of marriage (probate laws, tax code, ability to see partner in the hospital in every state in the nation) from the religious. But I suspect we’re years away from such a thing.,
Or, Healing? How do expect healing when people on this very thread profess, in the same post, horror that their children will hear at school that gay couples exist, and their love of gay couples in their lives. The church cannot do everything in their power to prevent even the most benign rights to accrue to gay couples (see Utah prop. 3 in 2004.) and expect anything like healing.
Or, Healing? The hatred of gay couples is a relatively new thing in Mormon theology, only backed by a couple of shakily translated verses in Leviticus (where, you may remember, God hates shrimp), Genesis (Sodom–actually rape) and from St. Paul, where each current translation of “homosexuality” is in doubt–they may refer to temple prostitutes, masturbation, specific types of homosexuality while allowing others, etc. So, the Mormon church could soften its stance, returning to the earllier Mormon understaning.
Do I think any of this is going to happen? No. I think the premise of this post is misguided. You cannot take something precious from someone, no matter how lofty your ideals, not offer to replace it with anything, and expect anything but, uh, dismay on the part of the victim.
Comment by djinn — November 23, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
The momon church’s involvement in taking away civil rights of citizens in a secular society is a long overdue reminder that the principle of separation of church and state is the most important part of our body of law. In this way Prop 8 has been a gift to our whole society, especially for the next generation who wlll have civil rights as an active issue of discussion throughout their school days. Mormons who send their children to public schools will have their chickens come home to roost on a daily basis. This whole issue would not be an issue with children if it were not for the mormon church. Secular civil rights will prevail.
What we are going to do about it is continue to populate state school boards with sensible people who make the decisions to buy the books that are in every classroom in this country. Calif. and Texas are the largest purchasers of text books. What they buy is what every other state buys. Citizen textbook review committies make recommendations, school boards rubber stamp them. The order goes out. Books come into the classroom.
Comment by Ruby — November 23, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
I’ve had kids in elementary school near Seattle for 6 years. So far, none of them have had classmates with gay parents. No pictures of gay parent families, no stories of gay couple households. I don’t want that to change for my younger two children who aren’t in school yet.
I have no openly gay friends. I have two friends who are temple recommend carrying Mormons who might be gay, but I am not close enough friends to ask them. I served in a RS Presidency with one of them (she was the RS president). The other was a chorister while I played the piano. I think they are both wonderful people. But I do not know if they are gay, so I can’t claim to know any gay people.
I can’t be the only one who doesn’t know gay people.
I do wonder about the idea of compromise. I think the church was completely willing to compromise by not fighting the civil union issue in CA and just chose to fight the marriage issue. That sounds like a wonderful, generous compromise. I personally don’ t like the civil union/domestic partner idea because I think it undermines marriage and encourages heterosexual couples to just live together (even if they have a child together) but I guess it is here to stay.
Comment by a1359 — November 23, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
I’m not reading the thread in its entirety, because as opinionated as I am on the topic, I’m also getting a bit weary of going round and round in these debates. But a couple notes in skimming:
re: 15
Intriguing thought, Mark. I hope you’re right.
Re: 69&70
I think there is a lot of hypocrisy in the anti-gay marriage crowd with their attempts at tolerance via civil unions. I’m elaborating in a post in the (hopefully) not to distant future. For now, let me point out that many in this group (including the LDS Church) have said that the anti-gay marriage laws do not infringe upon freedom of religion because religions which choose to do so (Unitarians, for example, and Reform Judaism) can still perform marriages of gays; they just won’t receive legal sanction. On the other hand, many (including the LDS Church and even the Eagle Forum) claim to be tolerant and say that homosexual relationships should have their rights protected, as long as they don’t use the term “marriage.” There is reason to be dubious that they are sincere (as FD mentioned, both groups have at least tacitly opposed such protections). But let us assume they are being sincere.
Thus, in a nutshell they believe that religions are free to perform gay marriage, but they won’t receive the legal rights of marriage, and gay relationships should have their legal rights protected, as long as what they do isn’t called marriage.
Smells like a heapin’ helpin’ of cognitive dissonance for dinner…
The solution is a truly Jeffersonian/Madisonian Freedom of Conscience. Any household can “incorporate” for the necessary legal benefits, without religious exclusions–I don’t care whether you legally call it marriage, civil unions, household corporation, or Shackin’. Any people can have their vows solemnized by a religion which is lead by their conscience to do so. Any religion is free to exclude (excommunicate) people who enter into relationships which the dictates of that religion bar–be they polygamy, interracial marriage, homosexual marriage, or any other permutation that religion deems inappropriate.
As long as each religion is finally willing to maintain its authority by the only truly moral one–persuasion–and stop trying to use the law to force its theology on others, the problem will be solved.
Comment by Derek — November 23, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
#72 Stephanie, thanks for sharing that story about your sister. I think that you handled the situation well and I’m glad to hear that you accept and respect her the way she is. I’m also glad to hear that she also understands that she needs to respect how you raise your children. It would have been sad if either of you had shut each other out of your lives because of a difference in lifestyle. If only all adults could approach all such situations with mutual respect!
#73 MikeInWeHo, I think you have brought up an extremely important point. How can we really build bridges and heal unless we admit past mistake? There’s no question that the Chuch has made some serious mistakes in its treatment of gays, whether we’re talking electroshock therapy at BYU or encouraging them to get married and have kids in order to be “cured.” Even if we do nothing more than apologize for those things, I think that it would mean a lot to many. I’m not saying it will satisfy everyone, but it would be significant.
#75 djinn, I understand where you’re coming from but I’m more of an optimist. Even if either side gets everything they want, approximately half of society is going to be pissed. “Misguided” or not, the premise of my post is what it is: building bridges. Both sides have a loooong way to go, IMO.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 23, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Here is an interesting timeline of gays in the LDS Church.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 23, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
I am worried about the implications that this has had on the safety of people. I don’t know if anyone remembers Lawrence King, but it makes me wonder if initiatives like Prop 8 help misguided people think that these are the only kind of solutions available. There are too many other people that have died in addition including a lesbian in Syracuse, New York, and a transgender woman in Nashville. Are the people who commit these crimes less likely to be deterred because of the votes against gay people in all of these different states?
The other thing I worry about is the discrediting of the LDS religion in its entirety. I have to admit, I have entertained thoughts about this before and wasn’t upset about it, but I think that the Church could find itself in serious trouble. Due to the involvement of the church in the Yes on 8 side, there has been a complaint filed saying that the Church has understated its donations.
The other thing that comes to mind is what happened in Missouri and Illinois. The LDS people became such strong voting blocs that the people felt they had no choice but to run them out of town. They have nowhere to go now, but it makes me wonder if we will see any Mormons in a national capacity, and see whether the ones serving in Congress maintain their seats. Just this election, Gordon Smith of Oregon was voted out in a tight race. It makes me wonder if the electorate will be willing to entertain the idea of a candidate that may be mobilized by their church on a “moral” issue.
So, I think that if we want to build bridges between the two communities, we need to stop fearing each other. As a gay man, I have no desire to walk into a church and demand to be married by the presiding official there. I do feel that I need to explore my spirituality a little more, as I have despised any type of spirituality since I came out about 5 1/2 years ago. I would like to learn more about why people are so energized by religion.
I think those people who are religious should make an effort to hear and learn about people in the LGBT community. You don’t have to give up your faith-based views, but make an attempt to form a connection with someone that is LGBT. Call up your local PFLAG chapter and talk to the family of someone who is gay. Attend a meeting of the LDS Family Fellowship. Reach out to people who are in these positions and are hurting, and try to understand why they are hurt. Not only will you learn about them, but they will probably learn about you as well.
A recent study documented that these types of initiatives have a negative effect on the psyche of LGBT people that live in the state. It makes us feel less human, even though we are no less Children of God than anyone else.
Btw, someone asked if you can be gay and work in a position in the civil side of government. My friend is going to work on Hill Air Force Base, and the agreement is that you can be gay, but you have to be totally open about it so that no one can black mail you for it.
I hope that this helps someone out there. If we are going to try and build bridges, it starts at building a strong foundation. You have to understand each other before anything can be accomplished.
Peace!
Nate
Comment by nategiggles — November 23, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Wow, TheFaithfulDissident, I’m impressed; a much better timeline than mine, which took me way too long to compile. Thanks. But it makes even clearer the ebb and flow of homosexuality as a “sin” within the church. I think that it would be very easy for Mormons to begin to reconcile with the Gay community by simply passing the 5 new propositions in the Utah legislature right now that would give limited rights to same sex couples. Easy. Sincere. Direct. On point.
Comment by djinn — November 23, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
What are we going to do about it? We go on trying to live the best lives we can. Not everyone is going to agree with us, not everyone is going to be happy with our ideas, not everyone is going to understand our beliefs. But that doesn’t matter. We just have to live the best lives we can and try to love everybody. Sometimes it is hard to live the gospel, sometimes it is exhausting, sometimes it is even embarrassing, but you have to remember to fear the Lord more than other people and what they might think of you. Who’s side are you going to stand on? The Lord’s side, or the world’s side? You know, I have been torn up about the Prop. 8 thing just as much as the next guy. I have gone through being angry, confused, sad, distressed, and disgusted about this issue. But I have made my peace. After lots of prayer and talking to others and listening to and reading a wide range of talks, I began to realize something. The Church does not normally participate in political issues, right? So for them to get involved in this issue must be a big deal. We don’t know what would happen if Prop 8 didn’t pass. Some people claim to have an idea of the repercussions, but the truth is, we don’t know. Our prophet may know, and our leaders may know, and perhaps that is why they were wanting us as a church to stand up for our morals and beliefs. The Lord knows all things and He leads his church through our prophet, and if our prophet is telling us we should speak up about this issue, then it must be for a reason. I have a testimony of living prophets. I have a testimony of the gospel. So when it comes down to this I just have to stay true to what I know in my heart. I too have gay friends, and I love them regardless. Some have been kind to me, some of them not so kind to me and I believe they have to find their own peace in their own way, just as we all do. I can only control how I think, act, and react to others. Sometimes healing comes when you surrender your will to Heavenly Father. I read a good article once that wasn’t LDS based, but still ties in with what I’m trying to say. One part of the article the author said “When I think about my own life, I can see that when I’m able to relinquish my will to a higher power, things are no longer a struggle; life gets easier…by releasing my grip, a power greater than myself seems to take hold to steer me where I need to go.….the reality is that we will be disappointed at times. When we surrender, it doesn’t mean that we throw our hands in the air and do nothing; it means we pay close attention to our intuition so we can act on this wisdom. Then, once we’ve done what we can, we let go and allow grace to shine a light on a better path—one that brings about the result that ultimately serves our highest good.” I think when something is hurting you as much as it is (like this Prop. 8 outcome) you should let the Lord take your burden. It’s sad to read about so many people losing their faith and testimonies and leaving the church because of this….
Comment by mk7 — November 23, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
anotherCAvoter,
Has anyone addressed your question yet? How to get past this when you and your spouse are on different sides of the issue?
My husband and I don’t agree on everything so I understand that it can be difficult.
Part of what is hard about disagreeing on a moral issue is that if you have children you think it is important to raise your children the most moral way, or most correct way. When this comes up in my marriage I try to tell myself that it is better for my children to be raised in a happy home than to be raised with all of my exact opinions (and without my husband’s wrong opinions).
ANother issue might be that you or your husband might have given time or money to the cause, or wanted to and been denied. I don’t know which way to help you heal. I can only encourage you to realize that there is no way two people can share resources and have the same opinion all the time as to how to spend money and time. Every marriage will run into these issues….even when it comes to church stuff. Whether it is accepting callings or going to meetings or whatever.
You must try to generous and understanding and forgiving on your side. You can’t worry about what your spouse should or shouldn’t do.
Are either of you co-dependent? Are either of you controlling? You might want to read up on these types of issues and understand how to do what you think is right, which always includes kindness and consideration toward your spouse but not feel like you have to control how your spouse feels about it. They have a right to their own feelings.
And pray! It has always helped me in my marriage.
Comment by jks — November 23, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
I honestly don’t understand the fear that has been expressed here of children being taught about homosexuality in school.
I guess my question is, taught WHAT? That gay people exist? That gay people are parents? The mechanisms of gay sex? The history of Stonewall and the gay rights’ movement?
A follow-up question would be, What is it, precisely, that scares you? What negative repercussions do you fear from your children learning about homosexuality?
I’m being sincere here - I just don’t understand the fear, and I am guessing it’s because I don’t understand what you mean when you say things like, “I’m afraid my children will be taught about homosexuality in school.”
Comment by Quimby — November 23, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
re: 83
I’m with you, Quimby. A I posted not too long ago on my own blog, I don’t see what all the fuss is about in regards to our children getting outside information on homosexuality.
Comment by Derek — November 23, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
Quimby, as far as I can tell, the fear is that they will be taught that homosexuality is morally acceptable, and that the parents and church won’t be able to override that view once it’s inculcated by the all-powerful school system, and that it will make the kids homosexual, and I guess some people would see that as a bad thing, even though they claim to have nothing against gay people. See #13. That concern strikes me as unrealistic, and based on a lack of confidence in the soundness of one’s own views and ability as a moral teacher.
In addition, I think it’s a silly argument– it basically boils down to a demand that the public schools endorse a particular set of views rather than another set. What basis is there for preferring one set of views, when views are mutually exclusive? I wish someone would spell out why they think the anti-marriage side should win out. There’s not much room for neutrality if children are going to find out that gay-parent families exist. And it’s far more damaging to have one’s parents’ relationship publicly denied and denounced, than it is to have to endure an endorsement of homosexuality slightly earlier than one’s parent would prefer.
Imagine, conversely, the hue and cry if schools declined to endorse Mormonism as an acceptable moral choice. Referencing #23, for example, what if I said I wanted to have control over when I taught my kids about Mormons, so the public schools shouldn’t be allowed to suggest that it’s ok to be LDS or that temple marriages are real, and if that makes LDS kids feel bad, well tough luck, because my getting to choose the time is more important than anyone else’s feelings. How is that different from what you’re saying, Kasi? It’s such a poor argument that I don’t believe it’s your real reason.
Comment by z — November 23, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Quimby- I am sort of with you. I never bought the education in schools issue. To me, all sorts of stuff is taught in the school, with our without the teacher. It is up to me as a parent to have a relationship with my child that is safe and comfortable for us to talk about these issues. On a similar note, I was discussing this with my sister and she said that they accidentaly attended Disneyland during Gay Days and she and her children had more of an education on gay issues then they would have every had at school. I actually would prefer they not talk about marriage at all in school as preferable or not. I think about the friends of my daughter and some are from divorced families or single parent families and this is a painful topic for them.
As for the church and this issue, I was checking this out today
http://www.untoldstoryofblackmormons.com/trailer_lg.html
Which has nothing to do with SSM, but with the history of black Mormons. I think it helped me to see that eventually things work out. I am not saying to stop fighting for what you believe in, but as members (and non-members alike), sometimes you just have to wait a bit for your answers. In particular, pay attention to the comment from the reverend at the end. I think it is especially helpful during these times.
Comment by Katie — November 23, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Katie, that’s a really good point. I used to really struggle with this in Primary since, almost without exception, my Primary kids came from families where the parents were divorced; or had been divorced (eg they had half-siblings or step-siblings); or were in the process of getting divorced. So it was hard to teach this “ideal” of one-man one-woman sealed in the temple in a marriage that didn’t break down - I always worried that it made the kids feel that their parents’ marriages were somehow “less than”.
Comment by Quimby — November 23, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
Totally with Quimby. I don’t understand the fear. To me, fear based actions aren’t usually that great of a response. Perhaps we need to have more confidence in our own abilities to teach our children what we want to teach them, and trust in God that they will find the way that is right for them.
When I was really young, my parents divorced in an area that was very heavily Mormon and not at all accepting of divorce. The teacher at my school brought up divorce and its effects on the family and how we should all be treating children of divorced parents. ( Presumably, she brought it up because my parents probably alerted her to the situation so she could be aware if I was struggling & because I had already been treated poorly because my parents were divorcing.) When she had this discussion with the class, I was incredibly hurt and sad and embarrassed and was crying because my family was so different and we had to have a talk about how ‘those people’ should still be accepted and treated fairly etc. I know this might seem silly to some now, but the point is…. that instead of being already in an environment (as a child) that was tolerant and understanding and compassionate– I ended up questioning my own self worth and felt terrible about myself for far too long. Now, I know that that is an issue that lots of kids from divorced parents can face and I’m not saying its the same thing as kids of the GLBT community. Just sayin that I know that in retrospect it would have helped me tremendously if I didn’t feel, as a young impressionable child, that there was something inherently wrong with my parents or me- for being their kid. Wouldn’t want any children of gays or lesbians to ever feel the way I did.
Comment by moksha — November 23, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
Looks like Katie and Quimby beat me to it.
Comment by moksha — November 23, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
We recently had an uncomfortable moment in Primary where the chorister was teaching “Families Can Be Together Forever” song and one young girl raised her hand and said, “What about divorce?” Yikes! I just wanted to give that young girl a hug is all. We also had a ward in SLC that we had to stop having any Father’s Day activities or lessons due to the fact that they were either gone or divorced. Only one girl of our 5 actually had a family where mom and dad were “typical” (married, not divorced). I am not sure if any of my children’s friends have parents who are gay, but I know they are welcome to my home any day. I actually worry the most about the children in light of all this Prop 8 stuff. I know my CA sister who participated in Yes rallies did not allow her children to be with her. I think it was a good decision. I think sometimes adults bring children into too many adult issues and forget that they are just kids and need to be kids.
I saw the “material” that was being taught to the kid in MA whose dad went to jail. It showed two guys in a home with a young girl. One guy was with the girl, the other guy was at the sink doing dishes. I think my daughter would not think even think about what they did in the bedroom. Call it indoctrination-soft boil approach…maybe. But unless I made a big deal about it, I don’t think she would care.
Comment by Katie — November 23, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
I think it extends to more than just the children of GLBT parents. I grew up in Redneck Central and when I was in the 4th grade I found out that one of my cousins was gay. It was like some dirty little secret - I was worried the other kids would tease me. I would like to think those dark days are behind us; but on the other hand I remember back several years ago when my 10 year old nephew, who went to a Christian school, was talking to me about his uncle being gay, and he had the exact same fear - that the other kids would tease him because his uncle was gay.
At the same time I have this concern that if we discuss homosexuality in school, perhaps it becomes more “other”. If we read books like “Heather Has Two Mommies” is it teaching our children that there is something weird about having two mommies, or is it teaching our children that families come in all shapes and sizes? If we discuss what it means to be gay are we somehow teaching our children that it’s outside of the norm? We don’t really teach our children what it means to be a boy or a girl or a member of a certain race or nationality, so is it somehow stigmatising to teach about sexuality? Acceptance is good. Tolerance is good. But by teaching it, are we subtly sending the message that there’s something different or maybe even wrong? Because you don’t have to “accept” or “tolerate” something that is normal - by their very definition, you “accept” and “tolerate” things that are different.
Comment by Quimby — November 23, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Sorry about the typos. I got a cold and its late.
Comment by Katie — November 23, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Quimby. Thank you. That’s what I was thinking and was unable to articulate.
Comment by moksha — November 24, 2008 @ 12:00 am
Reasons why schools will teach about the existence of gay people and tolerance in general:
Nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT Students Harassed
Boy, 15, lay down in front of train after gay taunts
Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Bullying
Comment by Steven B — November 24, 2008 @ 12:42 am
And one more link to indicate why school curriculums will teach about homosexual and gender variant people:
E.O. Green School shooting
Comment by Steven B — November 24, 2008 @ 12:48 am
Well, I am obviously not very good at explaining myself, because everyone seems to think that my views are different from what they really are. Also some of the comments have made me stop and really figure out my true feelings on this issue before responding so as not to make myself into even more of a punching bag than I already am.
My oldest child is in Kindergarten, so I am new to the public school system. I don’t know how they will teach about marriage, sex, racism, sexism and yes, homosexuality. And obviously getting my information on this from the other moms at play group is not ideal, especially when many of them are very opinionated on the issue.
Why don’t I want my child to learn about homosexuality yet? Basically because I am not ready to teach him about SEX period yet. I would prefer he get the discussion from me, rather than his teachers and I think he is too young. After thinking more about the issue, I realized how ridiculous it was to be afraid that my children will learn about sex and homosexuality in grade school. And by the time they are ready for that discussion in school, I should have already had it with them at home.
And I have realized that learning that a family may consist of two mommies or two daddies won’t necessarily lead to sexual questions. I think my child would probably just shrug and go on with his day thinking nothing of it.
I think that part of my original fear was that my children would come home from school with questions that I am not able to answer. My children constantly ask if they can marry each other, or their cousins or me or my husband. After they learn more about gay marriage, I am sure they will start to ask if they can marry members of the same sex.
How do I answer that? Especially when I am not completely sure how to reconcile my feelings about gay marriage with my religious views? If I tell them they can marry whomever they want, will I be denying my religious beliefs? If I tell them they can only marry a member of the opposite sex, will I make them less accepting or afraid of talking to me in the future should they have feelings for a member of the same sex?
My conclusion? I am getting way ahead of myself. My children are young. Also, what right do I have to be against gay marriage being taught in school simply because I am afraid I won’t be able to answer a few questions?
If teaching gay marriage in school will help my children be more accepting of others, then I can’t see a reason why it would be a bad thing. And I have realized that my other fears are unfounded.
But I am still having a hard time reconciling my religious beliefs with how I feel about gay marriage. I feel gays should be allowed the same rights I have to marry, to have children, to file their taxes together and visit in the hospital. I also feel they should be able to live their lives without hate and persecution.
On the other hand, I am LDS. I have been taught homosexuality is wrong. My husband is completely staunch in this belief. And when we talk about it, I feel like such a “bad mormon”.
Anyway, I am sorry FD for diverting everyones attention from the what the real intent of your post was.
Comment by Kasi — November 24, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Kasi, thanks for your comments. I can really appreciate what you expressed in this last comment of yours. I agree with much of it.
This is one of those issues that tends to make us all feel like either “bad Mormons” or “bigots.” Seems it’s awfully hard to be neither.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 24, 2008 @ 9:25 am
I think the government is about to get out of the marriage business altogether by offering civil unions to both gays and straights. This will allow anyone who wishes to be “married” to do so in their own preferred way (church, synagogue, druid forest). Everyone will just get a civil union certificate first (like a birth certificate) and then people can do what they wish about the rest of it just as they do now with baptisms, christenings and the like. Its the only practical solution to the separation of church and state. I look forward to it.
Comment by ryder — November 24, 2008 @ 9:40 am
Well, FD, I’ve enjoyed your guest posts. You are an articulate and eloquent writer and I do think you’ve captured the ambivalence of many a member on the issue. Also the exhaustion.
How to resolve it? I am a strong proponent of civil discourse. I don’t like ugliness, misrepresentation, disrespect or nonsense from either side of any issue. Period.
That being said, I am waiting for our tithing reconciliation meeting- coming next week.
My husband and I tithe separately for convenience and consolidate the information at this time of year. This is when my dh and bishop will find out that I stopped tithing when I discovered that my church gave official funding toward the Prop 8 issue. I was fine with the public stance on the morality as the church sees it-which is not new nor unexpected. Not fine with direct official political interference (which I abhor) and the donation of tithing funds. Nope. My 10% went to Kiva and extra fast offerings, where I thought it would do a lot more good, and so it has, IMO. It also helped me deal with the very real heartbreak I was feeling for my gay brother- who has from the very first, been nothing but decent and kind and supportive of my church’s right to stand by their own beliefs…even if those beliefs were instrumental in affecting his own desires and rights in life. I had also elected not to tell my dh at the time because I did not want him to make any hasty decisions based on my personal connection to the issue. My decision, my consequences. I will tell him tonight, because he handed me the budget and tithing consolidation form this morning. I know he’ll support me. He’s been following along and has also agreed that the church became way too politically involved.
My bishop? I don’t know. We’ll see-he’s a wonderful man, insightful and kind. I did not announce my decision to anyone and I continue to believe in giving back 10% of my increase.
I always maintained that this is an individual issue, to be decided by the people apart from the religious aspect of the matter. There was always the civil aspect to decide upon, and I did- as my own conscience and prayers dictated. I believe the church crossed the line I am comfortable with. Even if I supported Prop 8, I would have the same issue over the church involvement being inappropriate and making use of the bully pulpit.
I have not yet been prompted to resume tithing. I ask every time I go to the temple and each month I send the check elsewhere.
So, I am a very interested party in how this plays out in real time with members who not only didn’t donate, but as in my case, witheld tithing over this issue. I am also waiting to see if church leadership in Utah gets on board with an alliance with gays in establishing the civil rights they claimed they were not against in CA. (BTW, an earlier post called this position generous, while I would argue that it’s merely decent). In my mind, that would be progress and go a long way in demonstrating the good will they are claiming to have.
I know that it’s just a matter of time before gay marriage is incorporated into both law and culture. I’m philosophical about the Prop 8 set back. My brother is right. It will move forward (hopefully with decency on both sides- I’m not happy with temple defacement, regardless of my disappointment over the vote…it’s tacky and disrespectful and no amount of finger pointing at the other side ever justifies disgusting behavior).
Comment by Kimberly — November 24, 2008 @ 10:00 am
My thoughts on redefining marriage goes with Maury Povich…you are the father!…in other words, marriage is not needed to determine paternity anymore which has redefined what marriage is more than anything ever has in recent history. It was the last aspect in marriages being engaged in for property and posterity rather than love.
You can’t say that marriage hasn’t been redefined over centuries when it’s a continually evolving state. It’s a personal state. Our heterosexual marriages today are so very different from that of our fifties housewife grandmothers and their turn of the century grandmothers. It wasn’t long ago that it was said that women weren’t in need of a vote if they had husbands to vote on their behalf. Marriage was required then for women to even have a voice.
As for gay people never being in open society. That’s untrue. It was openly practiced in ancient Rome and Greece where marriage for love was not practiced, rather it was for property and paternity. (And we get a nice chunk of the philosophies of our government from those societies.) Native Americans have a longer history of revered openly gay members in their tribes.
Lastly, I agree with Ryder.
Comment by Becky..AMHW — November 24, 2008 @ 10:33 am
re: 96
I think your realization is perfect. Reading books to children about two dads or two princes (or whatever other books about the subject) won’t teach people the mechanics of homosexual sexual activity. Kids won’t see it that way.
How do we reconcile gay marriage with the teaching of the Church? The same way we reconcile the widespread use of alcohol and coffee with the WofW (just to use one example). Free Agency. Many people in society do things which the Lord (according to our faith) reveals to us are inappropriate. They have that right, but we chose to do otherwise in obedience to the Lord. We may teach them about the Lord’s counsel, but they can chose for themselves, as long as their choices don’t hurt others. And we cancontinue to love them despite their choices just as we love our friends who don’t live the WofW, who don’t keep our Sabbath Day holy, etc.
Comment by Derek — November 24, 2008 @ 10:55 am
#102 Kimberly, I totally agree with you about the civil union thing. If our Church really supports it, as they say, then they have to quit fighting against it. It just looks so hypocritical.
I sympathize with your decision to withhold tithing and donate it to another good cause. And it doesn’t get much better than Kiva. I love Kiva.
Let us know how it goes with your husband and bishop. Hopefully they will understand and respect your decision.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 24, 2008 @ 11:29 am
oh hell, i can’t babysit the thread because i’m away and people like phil johnson in # 1 derail it in the first comment. why can’t you see the good in FD’s post and comment on that?
god, sometimes, some of you are a bunch of babies.
leave us alone.
Comment by mfranti — November 24, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
What I would like to know is where this idea (definition) of “traditional marriage” came from? If we were living traditional marriages by the bible standards we’d have a crap load of men marrying multiple wives out there (legally). Which was standard and traditionally accepted in many books of the bible… I’m confused where this modern definition came from… Any thoughts?
Comment by Scully — November 24, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
I really enjoyed TFD’s post. In response to the “building bridges” elements to it: I think it’s a good idea to try to find common ground now and I think, amongst the members, that is much more possible than the world at large… it is clear to me at least, from all that has happened since, that people view us Mormons in a certain light that we can do little to change. Maybe I’m a pessimist… I personally think that, even if we advocate for civil unions, the extreme element of the pro-8 movement will find something to be angry about. I’m really not sure that, in this case, we can make everyone happy.
It’s not always possible to make everyone happy.
Comment by sare — November 24, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
sorry… meant the “no on 8″ movement.
Comment by sare — November 24, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Kimberly #102 - if you continue to not pay tithing, won’t you lose your temple recommend? Isn’t that one of the questions they ask? And if you lose your temple recommend, then you won’t be able to go to the temple to seek the guidance of the Lord (like you indicate you have been doing). Is it worth losing that?
Comment by Stephanie — November 24, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
RE# 102 and all rest of the misinformed, I recently got off the phone with an L.A. Times reporter friend of mine and he told me what really went on. So here are the facts 1. THE CHURCH DID NOT GIVE ANY MONIES TO YES ON PROP 8.
They however 2. Did ask it’s members to protect the Idea of Marriage between a man and a woman… “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.” (june 2008)
Now is this clear, stop getting your news by biased agencies and not doing any research before making decisions. Sheesh!
Comment by meee — November 24, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Now if anything happened locally, it was not by the authority of the church leadership, it was by local mormons, oh! I mean morons.!
Comment by meee — November 24, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Just when things were starting to get civil again.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
I know that this is an extreme example, but unfortunately it’s the only one that comes to mind, so if it seam a particularly harsh comparison, please forgive. I’m in the middle of building a website.
If you believe that the Mormon Church is free of the sin of donating directly to the yes on prop 8, then you would have to believe that Charles Manson is innocent.
I up for hearing a kinder analogy if anyone has the time.
Comment by Debbie — November 24, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
WOW
Here we go again. This was given by Neal A Maxwell in 1978 but it is still aplicable with this issue:
“Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters — in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kgs 18:21).
“President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had ‘never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life.’ (CR, Apr 1941) This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ…
“Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. M. J. Sobran observed, ‘A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it’ (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people’s opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened…
“Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even these, however, must leave a record so that the choices before the people are clear and let others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, that others will step forward, having been rallied to righteousness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds–a majority which was, till then, unconscious of itself.
“Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves ’summer is nigh’ (Matt. 24:32). Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat.”
Elder Neal A. Maxwell, “Meeting the Challenges of Today”, BYU Devotional, 10 Oct 1978
Comment by Bosley — November 24, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
I find the “fear” of children being “taught about homosexuality in school” somewhere between silly and ludicrous.
My children’s classmates have known since Kindergarten that families exists with two moms, or other “non-traditional” configurations. My daughters have never been anything but open about the fact that they have two mothers, and I have worked in their classrooms from K onwards. Any notions their classmates may have had about the “impossibility” of having a family without “one mommy and one daddy” vanished before October rolled around.
The poster who claims that she doesn’t know any gay people saddens me, not because she ought to get out and find some, but because the gay people in her life are obviously too fearful to live their lives openly. That’s sad. And it is things like Prop 8 which reinforce that fear. California is arguably the most liberal state in this country. Whenever I think things are bad here, I remind myself that most of my gay friends online live in states where simply being gay is barely legal, and there is no hope of even the most basic of “civil unions” granting them even things as simple and compassionate as the right to visit with their spouse in the hospital.
Someone made the statement that we need to protect religious groups from harassment due to their beliefs and teachings. That protection is firmly in place. No religious organization in this country can be or has ever been successfully sued for teaching its followers its beliefs, no matter how odious those beliefs may be to some outsiders. No religious organization in this country can be or has been successfully sued for refusing to marry a couple for religious reasons (and don’t claim the case in New Jersey was such a case. It was not. The couple was not denied marriage in the church. They were denied use of a facility the church was renting to the public for use as a public venue. The church was taking tax dollars in exchange for the public’s use of their property. Whey they denied the lesbian couple the use of the property, they violated the terms of their public use agreement and had the agreement revoked. They did not lose their tax-exempt status as a church.)
What churches CAN do is teach whatever they wish in their churches. They CAN witness door-to-door about their beliefs. They CAN teach their children their beliefs. What they CANNOT do (at least when the principles of our government are properly upheld) is insert themselves into the political process, either by donating a significant portion of the church’s funds, or by compelling the membership to divert their giving) in order to have the church’s beliefs written into the laws of our land.
No church need fear prosecution in this country for exercising freedom of speech or freedom of religious beliefs. Pastors and priests can, should, and do feel free to preach about the “sinfulness” of homosexuality from the pulpit every Sunday. Churches can, should, and do feel free to deny communion to gays, deny fellowship to gays, deny sacramental blessing of marriage to gays. Religious families should feel free to disinherit their gay children if they wish to do so. They should feel free to refuse those children access to their homes at the holidays. All fine and dandy. (Sad, but fine and dandy).
But when a church enters into a political action and contributes millions of dollars to spread lies (and make no mistake — many lies were spread making use of money contributed by faithful members of LDS and other churches) in order to write its beliefs as the law of the land, this is where the line is crossed.
Are gay people angry? Well, wouldn’t you be angry if a group pass a law against YOUR family and YOUR life by way of spending millions and millions of dollars to lie about who you are, what you believe, and what your presence means to society? The LDS church HAS historically been the victim of many smear campaigns. It continues to be the victim of smear campaigns. As a lesbian who comes from an extended family which is about 1/3-1/2 Mormon, I have many, many times spoken in defense of the modern LDS church when other people abused it with comments about polygamy and other issues.
As people who know what it is like to be the victims of lies and deceipt and misconstructions spread about them in order to deny them safe places to live and access to the political system, now having gained enough population and financial capital to be able to force access to that system, I would think the LDS church would think twice about using its human and financial capital to engage in similar acts of dishonesty, distortion and disenfranchisement.
When you wonder why gay people are so angry and continue to be so angry, and just won’t “get over it” or “put it behind us and try to go forward and be friends,” just remember that gay people didn’t start this. We didn’t attack the rights of Mormons to teach as they please in their churches. We didn’t try to legally compel Mormons to offer sacramental marriage to gay couples. The LDS church stepped in and helped TAKE AWAY our EXISTING right to CIVIL marriage. And while certainly other people helped this along, the polls through the summer and fall demonstrate pretty clearly that, without the many television commercials spreading lies and fear smears, primarily funded by the $20 million which LDS leadership urged its membership to contribute, Prop 8 would very likely not have passed. It was at the point when these commercials full of myriad falsehoods, hit the airwaves that the polls began to shift.
So, rather than spending a lot of time wondering why gay people are so angry, perhaps consider devoting an equal sum of money, time and effort into ensuring that ALL GAY PEOPLE across this entire country have access to the civil rights accorded by marriage. If you want to call it civil unions for everyone, and have marriage be only something that churches dispense as a sacramental blessing, I, like probably most gay people, would be fine with that. But don’t just say, “Wouldn’t that be nice?” Put your money, your time and your efforts where your mouth is and help make it happen. Otherwise, your words about “wanting everyone to have equal civil rights, just don’t call it marriage,” ring a little false.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Thanks for all your comments. I am gay and a member of the church in full fellowship. I am going to tell you how it is for me. This is how I explained to my bishop. I told him I reallllllly like ICE CREAM. My preference is Rocky Road. The lord says If I am to have Ice cream I must first be married to someone of the opposite sex and that If I want to partake of the Ice cream it can only be vanilla. So It is my choice. I am greatful for the lords pattern he knows what is best for me. I just want everyone to just support everyone on their journey through life. Be accepting of everyone at were they are right now!!!!! Christ is comming again and he will place it back in his order, so lets just LOVE each other. Peace be still. Mary Kay
Comment by Mary Kay — November 24, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Incidentally, my children, the daughters of two lesbian moms, did not KNOW the word “gay” until the Prop 8 battle got heated this fall. If the LDS and other churches are so very concerned about children learning about homosexuality in schools, they might have thought twice about endorsing and having their followers fund a campaign to teach, discuss and post commercials and signs about it in every possible public venue. My children know the word “gay” now, and they also know that a huge group of people in our neighborhood don’t think we should have the right to exist as a family. How very, very sad. We had been able to protect them from that kind of damaging knowledge up until now, but thanks to the efforts of the LDS Church, and its followers in our neighborhood, along with a handful of evangelicals, my children now clearly understand that a lot of people don’t like us.
That hurts my heart as a mother more than I can express to you.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
What I would like to know is where this idea (definition) of “traditional marriage” came from?
“Leave It To Beaver”, “The Donna Reed Show”, “Father Knows Best” and “Happy Days” I’m guessing. I’d like to include “My Three Sons” in there, but since we had Mssrs. MacMurray and Demarest running the show there, it might have to be retitled “My Two Dads” these days.
Of course, the fine folks who gave us The Beav also gave us Herman and Lily Munster, so I guess we have to scale back on the “traditional” there just a bit.
Comment by Mark N. — November 24, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Read D&C 134:9….comments?
Comment by Kirsten — November 24, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
#115 Bosley, would you have advised George Romney in the 60’s to not “(hesitate) to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church” and walk out on the black civil rights movement? Perhaps accuse it of being a “communist program” like Ezra Taft Benson did?
#117 Mary Kay, I enjoyed your comment. Thanks for sharing.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 24, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Why exactly would you say something like this on a site called “Feminist Mormon Housewives”?
Comment by Stephanie — November 24, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Lorian,
Thank you so much for your post. For taking the time to eloquently speak on behalf of the truth and what is morally and constitutionally right. We have daughters and before prop 8 my daughter still wasn’t aware of the bigotry against her family. It too broke my heart to have to explain this to a 6 year old girl who believed better of her neighbors.
You cannot live in this Country and call yourself a patriot if you do not believe in the separation of church and State. Mormon supporters of prop 8, though very pro-church, are as un-american as they come…and I don’t think it ironic that pro prop 8 bloggers still ignore my petition to post their feelings on the separation of church and State.
Comment by Debbie — November 24, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
In regards to “traditional marriage,” I don’t really like that term either because of course marriage has changed and evolved over time. “Traditional marriage” is not what we think it is. The question is not whether we should be protecting traditional marriage, but rather the definition of marriage being between different genders.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 24, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
I’ve found a powerful, and purely secular, argument for limiting the definition of marriage.
I’m curious as to both TheFaithfulDissident’s view on it AND anyone else’s.
In the following link is a link to the source document and a video of myself reading the paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_j9nTiZ5VQ
Comment by HiveRadical — November 24, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Debbie,
I believe in the freedom of religion. It is in the Bill of Rights. Separation of Church and State is not in the Bill of Rights, only in a Supreme Court decision. While I agree with it to some extent, it has been taken way too far. Unfortunately, many people think that separation of church and state means that religion needs to go underground….be practiced only behind closed doors in homes and churches.
The “state” seems to be adopting secularism or atheism as the national religion. How separate is that? This is exactly what the Pilgrims came to America for. And exactly what the writers of the constitution were trying to avoid, which is why religious freedom is in the First Amendment.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Comment by jks — November 24, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
jks, I am certainly not suggesting that religion “go underground.” But the establishment clause has traditionally been interpreted (and even by the people responsible for its writing) as not only limiting the government’s interference with the church, but also limiting the church’s influence upon the government and upon the freedoms and rights of the people.
The reason the pilgrims came to this country was because religion had so dominated government in their lands of origin that they were not free to practice religion differently than the government dictated. This was not simply because the government was determined to take away the freedom of religion, but because the government had elected to endorse a particular religion, allow that religion to write its beliefs into the laws of the land, and then compelled the government to use those laws to discriminate against those who disagreed with the prevailing religious opinions and authorities.
This is precisely what the founders wished to AVOID as they began to document this nation’s policies towards government and religion.
Can you not see the parallel here? Truly?
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
Quimby,
I would like to address your concern about exposure to gay marriage at school.
I have four children ages 8 months to 11. I’m a SAHM and so I am with them when they are not in school. I get a lot of messages from our society that it is my job to filter everything if I object to it and my job to teach morality.
How many hours are there in a day? How can I possibly follow my children around 24/7 to moniter it.
Society no longer cares about my kids and how they grow up. The people who makes kids TV shows and movies don’t particularly care. Free speech is far more important that protecting children from things. My children will eventually start listening to the radio. They say a lot of crap on the radio. Songs? Lots of crap. Even if I don’t let them have exposure to the media, kids at school talk and act like what they’ve seen.
Is my only choice to homeschool my kids and throw away TV and internet?
I realize that parents are far more important than all the other imfluences. But the other influences will take a toll, and hurt some kids more than others.
Our society just doesn’t care about raising the next generation to be decent and moral, honest and hardworking. In fact, they don’t even care of any of us actually have children and there are any future generations. I will never be convinced that supporting the traditional family isn’t the best thing for future generations. Government should do things that help traditional families (like free marriage counseling, or marriage education classes). Government is there to help society as a whole, not just to protect individuals.
Comment by jks — November 24, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Nothing hyperbolic and bigoted in that statement. Thanks for being so calm and attempting to build those bridges.
I did. You didn’t respond.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Kasi - Thank you for taking the time to explain. I am sorry if I made you feel like a punching bag; my comments weren’t directed at you; rather, I put them out there because I’ve heard it many times from many different people and I wasn’t sure what was meant.
jks, if you can’t see how the first amendment can be applied direclty to seperation of church and state, well, I really don’t know what to say. The precise phrase may not appear; but “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is pretty precise language and has been interpreted consistently for centuries now.
Comment by Quimby — November 24, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Debbie, your petition wasn’t ignored. See #36 from Ray.
And Ray’s right. Separation of church and state simply means that the state cannot sponsor any particular religion. That is why the United States does not have an official religion (as some countries do, i.e. Spain and Catholicism). Separation of church certainly has never meant that people cannot let their religious views influence their votes. Nor does it mean that churches cannot be involved in politics or try to influence policy if they so choose. The only thing that separation of church and state prevents, at least according to the Constitution, is the state sanctioning a particular church.
We all vote based on our beliefs and our consciences. Yours tells you that it’s only fair that gays be allowed to marry, and that’s perfectly valid. But others’ beliefs tell them that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You might not agree, but they have a right to vote based on that view.
Comment by lawyergirl — November 24, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
jks, I have never observed that the schools in my state teach immorality. In fact, having spent a great deal of time in my children’s classes, I find that the school they attend spends a great deal of time teaching children to be honest, decent, fair, loving, ethical and caring human beings. If the school taught my children something immoral, believe me, I’d be the first person standing in line to speak with the principal.
Teaching children that families exist that look different from their own family (whether that means teaching my children that some families have a dad, two dads, a single mom, whatever) or teaching your children that families like mine exist (with two moms), this does not constitute teaching children to be immoral. It teaches children to be respectful of their peers, even those who are different from themselves, even those with whom they might have disagreements. I think we could ALL use a bit more of that, don’t you?
And, incidentally, to your comment:
I must point out that government IS there to help society as a whole, but that does not negate government’s responsibility to protect the individual from discrimination by the majority, to protect the rights of families which do not look “typical” as compared with the families of the majority, and to protect CHILDREN like mine from the negative effects of the attempts of religious groups to disenfrachise them because their parents do not conform to the beliefs of that religion.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Faithful dissident
Show me where the church ever came out against the civil rights movement? So your comment about “me” advising George Romney not to support that is bassackwards. I think you are talking “apples and oranges”
Comment by Bosley — November 24, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Lawyergirl, you are absolutely right that people, individuals, have the right to vote according to their individual consciences, based upon whatever religious or secular principles may be informing their decision. No one is arguing this (or, at least, I am not).
But RELIGIONS do not have the authority to impose their beliefs upon the state, which is what was done by way of Prop 8 and similar religiously-motivated “gay bans.”
This is where the role of the judiciary branch lies. If a law is passed which violates the constitution — in this case, if a law is passed which enforces the will of a religious institution to become the law of the state (which, in effect, accomplishes the “establishment of religion” forbidden by the constitution), it is the job of the judiciary to overturn that law as unconstitutional.
Thus, if Religion A (who held a majority in a given state) put a referendum on the ballot which declared that all citizens must practice a particular behavior which Religion B (minority) declares “a sin,” and, of course, the ballot measure passes and becomes a law, obligating the followers of Religion B to offend their own consciences and the dictates of their religion by engaging in the behavior, it would be the mandated task of the judiciary to overturn that law and to free the practitioners of Religion B (and everyone else, for that matter) from the obligation.
The same is true, here. While being gay is not a religion, it is a fact of our lives, in the same way that being an interracial couple was a fact of life for the Lovings of Virginia fame. The religious majority passed laws forbidding the Lovings from legally marrying in the state of Virginia. It was the job of the judiciary to look at the antimiscegenation laws of Virginia (and other states) and to determine whether they had any valid reason for existence which did not arise out of the dictates of religious beliefs about “the mixing of the races” or the dictates of simple prejudicial distaste for the unfamiliar, and then, finding in the negative, to declare such laws and statutes unconstitutional.
The government cannot legally enforce laws which are based solely in the beliefs of a particular religion or in the prejudice of the majority. Such laws are unconstitutional in their very being. The court performs the job of discerning this unconstitutionality and making the declaration to overturn these laws.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Bosley, perhaps you aren’t aware that blacks were not even considered full members of the Mormon Church until 1978?
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Here is an interesting commentary on black people in the LDS Church:
You can read more at the following link:
http://religion-today.blogspot.com/2008/09/revelation-and-black-mormons.html
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
But RELIGIONS do not have the authority to impose their beliefs upon the state, which is what was done by way of Prop 8 and similar religiously-motivated “gay bans.”
I understand the sentiment, but it simply isn’t correct. Religions didn’t “impose their beliefs upon the state”. Religions asked their members to vote and articulated why they felt a particular vote was the better option. That has happened all throughout our history and has NEVER deemed to be in violation of the separation of church and state.
This is one of the reasons people are concerned about “redefining words”. I agree completely that marriage has had many definitions throughout history, and I believe the redefinition argument is weak, but when people start redefining other things simply to support their own beliefs and silence others it is no different than that which they complain about in those others.
If we are going to build any bridges in this arena, we are going to have to give up the extreme, hyperbolic statements on BOTH sides and actually try to work together. This post was a great example of that attempt; too many of the comments are not.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Debbie’s a troll, right?
Comment by Martin Willey — November 24, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Bosley, you are wrong on this one. There have been prominent church leaders, including prophets, who were wary of and opposed to racial civil rights. There were some truly ugly and unenlightened comments made. That is not a shining example of the Gospel in action, and I support those who said them as prophets and apostles notwithstanding their views on race.
Bruce R. McConkie was explicit that they spoke with limited light and understanding, and I believe he was correct.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
#125, how would that argument apply to heterosexual couples who chose not to/can’t have children? Should they not be allowed “marriage” either?
While reading these comments, and others on the web, it has become very clear that most people do not fully understand what the opposing side believes or how they truly acted on this issue. There is also an awful lot of generalizations going on here. For example, not every gay man or woman in California harassed temple workers in Oakland or supported those who did. Just as not every mormon voted yes on 8 or is a bigot.
Comment by Kasi — November 24, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Lorian,
I am aware of that but maybe you aren’t aware that they could be members of the church just couldn’t hold the priesthood. And that has nothing to do with George Romney supporting the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was never deemed as a moral issue with the church so I don’t see how it is even applicable here.
I have a gay brother and support his decision to live a gay lifestyle without having to support gay marriage.
Comment by Bosley — November 24, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
i agree.
Comment by Kasi — November 24, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
jks
Sorry I missed Ray’s addressing “seperation of church and state”
I’ve thoroughly gone back through the blog and found it.
The State of California is sponsoring Christianity, hello!
I truly believe, if there were a massive migration of Muslims to this country or 51% of the country converted to Muslim and voted in numbers to change our constitution based on their personal religious beliefs you would feel quite differently. In a free country the face and majority is always changing. To allow a particular religion like christianity to influence one’s individual rights under our constitution is a SIN. I will not sugar coat what I said. Mormon’s who back prop 8 are very Un-american to me.
Comment by Debbie — November 24, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Where do we go from here? That is the question I have been asking myself. A gay rights group in Utah has proposed that the LDS Church work with them on passing legislation to protect the rights of gays and lesbians in the areas of housing, employment, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making. An interim committee of the Utah state legislature just recommended a change to the Utah probate code (I think) which would allow any heir (including by implication same sex partners) to sue for wrongful death. I see all these as positive things for which members of the LDS Church and of the gay community could work together.
Comment by fifthgen — November 24, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Ray,
I would like to see “quotes” of what you are talking about cause i have never heard that. If you are right and they did make those kind of comments then I would venture to say that they were speaking as “individuals” and not as General Authorities speaking for the church like our First Presidency did with Prop 8
Comment by Bosley — November 24, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
Ray, two things:
Religion imposing its will upon the state does not have to come by way of a single religious authority imposing his or her will upon a single authority within the state (such as the Pope dictating a policy on birth control, which is then implemented by the King of a Catholic nation). It can also be a religious majority of the population writing the will of their religion into the laws of the land.
An example would be if a religious group in a particular state or locality decided that women must wear dresses. This rule would please the majority and would fit with their religious beliefs concerning proper moral behavior in society. Unfortunately, it has no secular reason for being. It is based solely upon the beliefs of the particular religion that women should not wear slacks. The court would overturn it as unconstitutional. It violates the rights of women to dress as they please purely because a given religion teaches that dressing in this manner is immoral.
Another example would be if a religious group which held a majority in a given area passed a law banning the raising of pigs or consumption of pork. Such a law would be unconstitutional, because it was based solely upon the morals and restrictions of the majority religion.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
This is totally going off topic but I just have to ask what this gay “lifestyle” is. I try to live an eco-friendly lifestyle which involves recycling, using reusable grocery bags, etc, etc. What is a gay lifestyle?
My gay friends go to work every day. They find stuff for house projects at home improvement stores on the weekends. Go out to dinner. Do laundry. Watch movies. Visit with friends and familly. Argue with their spouse about pet peeves. Pretty much the same kinds of things I do and all of my other married/committed relationship friends do.
I must be living a gay lifestyle.
Comment by In Cal — November 24, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Bosley, here is a link to a copy of a letter written to Gov. George Romney during his campaign for President:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf
The letter is from a Mormon apostle named Delbert Stapley. Mr. Stapley admits he is writing from his own authority, not under the auspices of the of the Prophet. However, he writes the letter on his official stationery as a member of The Council of The Twelve, and makes some rather shocking statements, including some veiled threats that, should Mr. Romney become president and continue in his advocacy of full civil rights for blacks, he might come to a very bad end, and giving several examples of this occurring to other individuals including former presidents of the USA.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
Okay, where do we go from here. I can’t speak for others, I can only speak for myself and tell you where I’m going and what I have done so far to help turn my corner of the planet around.
First, I talk to all of my friends who believe that all Mormon’s feel one particular way and all Mormon’s voted yes on prop 8. I brag to them about this blog for it has surely shown me the error of my ignorant ways. Mormon’s are quite liberal and free thinking.
Second, I show everyone that I have a face, a family and a dire personal need to be married. (Well now I am married, just got the license in the mail 3 days ago!!!)
I exercise my freedom to protest. (peaceably of course) It is a passionate and worthy cause and I never got a chance to do it for the Black civil rights movement or protesting Vietnam.
I let people know about all of the brave and courageous Gay individuals I know who gave their life for your freedom. Like Mark Bingham who gave his life through his heroic acts on 911. Mark was a Mormon.
Or I talk about Marks Mormon Mother who is leading the the cause for the reversal of prop 8.
I continue forming my list for a website which will show a list of Gay owned businesses that help keep our economy afloat. There is power in money as the churches has shown us.
I will do what ever I can to show the people who voted yes on 8, in many cases I assume very nice people, that it was wrong.
I will work to show the State and the Country that to sanction marriage and not allow all groups to benefit from it is wrong.
…and I will keep visiting this blog, to be ever heartbroken and elated by the posts of the people
Comment by Debbie — November 24, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
Thank you, In Cal. I find the phrase “gay lifestyle” pretty strange, myself, since my “lifestyle” looks pretty much like that of any other suburban stay-at-home mom (though my clean laundry gets a little stacked up when I spend too much time posting on the internet — but maybe that’s not so different, either?).
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
jks - Sorry, I didn’t see your #128
First, I should admit to perhaps a bit of bias since my father was a public school teacher and a damned good one, and also one of the most upstanding and moral people I have ever known. So, I simply don’t believe that teachers don’t care about their students. I know my dad too well to give any credence to that idea.
Second, I am also a strong believer in social contract theory, and I’m more than a bit of a socialist - and so I would agree with you completely that government exists to help society, and not to help the individual. I see a lot of hypocrisy in the conservative movement in the US, which pays lip service to “family values” but does very little to actually promote or encourage families.
But I don’t understand how gay marriage is enigmatic to the support of families. Gay people exist. Gay people have children. Surely we are supporting families by extending rights to families that are led by gay couples?
You may feel strongly that a family model of one man + one woman + children is the ideal. However you cannot deny that families come in many different configurations; and that this has been true almost since time began. The “norm” of family configuration changes according to time, geographical location, religion, and a host of other factors. You will struggle to find universal support for the idea that one man + one woman + children is the ideal. You will struggle to find it in the United States, in the wider world, in history, and even in the word of God.
The ultimate struggle of any Western-style democratic government is balancing the rights of the individual with the greater good. The two will always be in conflict, in part because all of us have different moral codes which dictate our beliefs and behaviors. In light of that governments create rules which dictate the finding of that balance - for instance, the separation of church and state; age of consent laws; etc. By their very nature many of these laws will dictate morality; generally speaking they will weigh more heavily to protect the vulnerable (eg, children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults) or to guarantee rights that aren’t intrinsically harmful to others (eg, blacks and whites can intermarry because who are they hurting?) In light of that criteria, is there any evidence that gay marriage damages the vulnerable or is intrinsically harmful to others?
Comment by Quimby — November 24, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Cal,
Maybe you are living a “gay lifestyle” If you are that is great for you. But you know exactly what I meant
Comment by Bosley — November 24, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Lorian,
Thank you for the research on the article. It was very interesting although you hit it on the head when you said that he was speaking for himself and not the church. I reiterate that there was no official counsel from the church on opposing or supporting civil rights. I do feel however that a letter like that should have never been sent on church stationary.
Comment by Bosley — November 24, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
And isn’t it sad that there was never an official statement from the church on civil rights - although many apostles and even some prophets came out publically and strongly against it - but the church felt inspired to speak on gay marriage?
Why is one a moral issue worthy of comment, and the other not?
Comment by Quimby — November 24, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Quimby, good post.
I have yet to find anyone who can present valid (i.e., unbiased, peer-reviewed) evidence that gay marriage harms society in any way. The research is quite clear that the children of two same-gender parents do equally as well as the children of two opposite-gender parents. The only way that those pushing a religious bias can find to suggest that gay parents are not as good as straight is to present obviously inapplicable studies of children being raised by a SINGLE parent, generally also the result of traumatic divorce, poverty or abandonment. The intent of such disingenuousness is quite clear.
The reasons for banning gay marriage cannot be strictly religious in this society. There must be a demonstration that allowing gay-parented families the same rights and protections under the law causes significant, demonstrable harm to others or to society at large. I have yet to see any such evidence.
If we are going to attach CIVIL rights and benefits to the conferring of the title of “married” upon a couple, then we must allow all citizens equal access to those rights and benefits, not just those whose lives conform to a particular religious test.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
Lorian, We obviously see this differently. Neither of us is going to be able to change the other’s mind, since it seems to be a fundamental issue for each of us.
Btw, if the vote had turned out the opposite way, I would be saying we need to follow the will of the people and accept gay marriage. In fact, I’m fairly certain I will be saying that in a few years, since I’m fairly certain the majority will be voting differently in the future. I just wish politics was about finding acceptable compromise instead of enacting the most popular extreme. We are split as a country pretty much 50/50 when it comes to extremes, but I believe it is more like 70/15/15 when it comes to moderate compromises - like civil unions with full civil rights. if that went to a vote of the people, I believe it would be a resounding vote in favor - but neither extreme would be satisfied, so both extremes would complain. That’s just sad.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
lorian, the examples that you give (a woman’s right to wear a dress and people’s right to eat pork) would be unconstitutional not based on separation of church and state principles but rather because women have a right to wear what they choose and people have a right to eat what they please that, absent compelling justification, a state cannot regulate. and a religious objection to wearing pants/eating pork is not a compelling state justification.
your examples would not be unconstitutional merely because they were religiously-based. if there were some other compelling state interest in regulating pants wearing/pork eating, the laws could still be valid even if there were ALSO religious justifications for the laws and religious beliefs/institutions led to their passage.
i apologize for detracting from FD’s post which i thought was really great and regretfully has received little actual attention. but the separation of church and state argument bugs me. i am torn on the issue of gay marriage and the church’s involvement therein. but one thing i do believe is that, even if the church’s involvement was not prudent, it certainly was not “unconstitutional.”
Comment by lawyergirl — November 24, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
the problem - as I see it (and I am addressing the original post not the comments) - is that gays feel “beat up” by the church. How on the earth do you build a bridge is a very good question!!! It reminds me of when I was a child and my parents would spank me and tell it hurt them more than it hurt me. Just real hard to understand when you are the hurt one. and I don’t believe in spanking either. or prop 8.
Comment by venus — November 24, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
re: 149
Mark Bingham was LDS? I hadn’t heard that. Reference? His Wikipedia entry doesn’t mention it.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 24, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Ray,
That isn’t sad to me at all. It’s democracy. So back to the original post which I myself fell away from as well. What are you going to do personally to heal. Heal yourself, heal others??? What is everyone going to do about it?
Comment by Debbie — November 24, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Ray, what you miss in #156 is that, had Prop 8 failed to pass, you would not have lost one single civil right as a straight person. The reason why the passage of Prop 8 is unacceptable and unconstitutional is because it disenfranchises a group of citizens of this country simply because an aspect of their lives does not conform to the religious beliefs of another group.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
lawyergirl, there are secular countries that have de-facto bans on the eating of pork for no other reason than that the religious majority dictates it, even if the Constitution of said country guarantees and protects the rights of religious minorities. For instance, you will struggle to find a pepperoni pizza in Egypt that contains pork (and yes, you can taste the difference), although Egypt is not governed by Sharia law and has enshrined in its Constitution protection for religious minorities. Egyptians make the following arguments: It is a commercial decision by the business in question; and Christians should expect to have to conform to the will of the majority since they are the minority.
The state does not dictate such behavior but also does not curtail it in the name of religious freedom. I would assume that the same would happen in the US if the US was heavily Islamic - individual companies would decide it was in their best interest to serve pork-free meals, which would leave all of us with a bitter taste in our mouth, because pork-free pepperoni just plain sucks.
Comment by Quimby — November 24, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Lawyergirl:
EXACTLY, LG. They would not be unconstitutional SOLELY BECAUSE they were religiously-based, but BECAUSE they were SOLELY religiously-based, if you follow. It is not the fact that they are in agreement with a particular religion’s morals that makes them unconstitutional. It is the fact that they are in conflict with the basic civil rights of the people and were only put in place because of the religious beliefs of the majority.
We have many laws which mirror the moral teachings of various religions, including, of course, laws against murder and theft. But we do not have these laws BECAUSE they mirror the teachings of a particular religion, but because murder and theft violate the human and/or civil rights of our citizens. If, however, a law, itself, violates the human or civil rights of our citizens (such as slavery or antimiscegenation), then that law must be unconstitutional, no matter how much it may conform to the teachings of a religious group — even the majority religious group.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
#160 - I’ve answered that question on this very blog in great detail. I am doing and will continue to do a lot.
#161 - I haven’t missed that. It would take a complete idiot to miss that, and, although we don’t agree, neither of us is a complete idiot.
For the last time, I support full and equal civil rights for all who are joined in civil unions (regardless of sexual orientation). I favor the government granting civil unions and churches or other institutions granting marriage - with whatever requirements they choose to include in that action. I really don’t like being accused of a position I haven’t taken, and I really believe there are solutions that the overwhelming majority would accept if presented.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
Oh, and to come full circle, I assume (based on their arguments) that both Debbie and Lorian would support granting full civil rights to polygamists. Just making that explicit.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Not just civil rights, but also the legal title of marriage.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
lorian, we agree.
all i’m saying is, there is nothing in the constitution that should prohibit religious groups/individuals from passing laws based on their moral beliefs. if the court decides those laws infringe on fundamental rights, the court can overturn those laws.
i don’t have a problem with that. on the contrary, i recognize that as an important role of the courts: to protect minority rights against the majority. (the tricky part is defining what those rights are.)
anyway, my problem is with people saying that religious views aren’t supposed to influence policy at all. (and i am responding more to what debbie said about pro-8 people being “unamerican” because they violate “separation of church and state” than anything that you’ve said.)
Comment by lawyergirl — November 24, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Mike in WeHo, For info on Mark Bingham:
http://www.affirmation.org/learning/straight_acting.shtml
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Got it, LG. No, I agree that people should have the right to vote according to their beliefs, but I tire of people being “shocked” by the judiciary “overturning the will of the people,” when the will of the people is to discriminate against and disenfranchise a minority purely on religious grounds.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
#102 Comment by Kimberly
Bravo!. Withholding financial support is hands down the best way to send a clear message to the powers that be. I sincerely hope you continue to withhold them while your church mounts it’s efforts to take away women’ right to choose.
Comment by Ruby — November 24, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Lorian, that link says Mark’s mother “spent several years as a Mormon”. It says nothing of Mark. (I am NOT trying to dispute anything in any way. It would be great if Mark was Mormon. I’m just saying there’s nothing in the link that says so.)
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
The Separation of Church and State is not violated by the people voting according to their own religious convictions. It is violated by the state allowing a law to take effect which violates the human or civil rights of citizens simply because the law represents the will or beliefs of a religious authority or a religious majority.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
It’s really weird to read mormons having a problem with “two mommies or two daddies”. The polygamist children from the Texas ranch didn’t even know which of the women they called mommy was their biological mother. Some of those children had been taken from their fathers in other places and reassigned to a new daddy. They know they have two daddies. Mormons of all people in this country know this argument means nothing.
Comment by Ruby — November 24, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
Hive Radical, I watched your first video and part of your second so far. It makes sense to me, but when the same secular arguments are given by people who are religious, they are dismissed as “religious” arguments.
Comment by Stephanie — November 24, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Okay, Ray, try this:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_11053782?source=rss
So, Mark was baptized as a Mormon, but the family left the church because of disputes over civil rights issues.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
Thanks, Lorian. That clarifies it much better.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Stephanie, the problem with Hive’s “secular” argument is that it leaves aside the fact that many male-female couples knowingly marry with the understanding that they never can and/or never will bear children. To outright ban gay marriage on the basis of lack of reproductive capacity would require that couples past child-bearing age also be prohibited from marrying, as well as couples one or both of whom were infertile from birth, or had been surgically or accidentally rendered infertile.
Additionally, it leaves aside the fact that many gay couples DO bear or adopt children and raise them with equal competence as compared to straight couples. So do many infertile couples, incidentally. Making a “reproductive test” for marriage discriminates against those who are unable to bear children or who choose not to do so for whatever personal reasons. It also treads perilously close to other infringements upon reproductive rights and freedoms, such as mandatory sterilization of “mental defectives,” which have already been found unconstitutional in this country. We do not govern people’s civil rights on the basis of reproduction.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
re: 124
Yep, the entire idea of tradition marriage is a sham, as Not Ophelia eloquently showed on this blog not too long ago. We should stop trying to ossify the tradition via law as we currently see fit.
re: 126
You are correct that the separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution–despite the efforts of the Founder most associated with the Constitution, James Madison. For more on the history of very important principle of the Separation of Church and State, a necessary condition for “freedom of religion” (or, as Madison and Jefferson preferred to call it “freedom of conscience,” please see “Separation of Church and State I: A Founding Principle.”
Keeping religion separate from government should not be equated with “adopting secularism or atheism as the national religion.” A strict separation is a necessary precondition for true freedom of religion. Sadly, many religious people in our nation do not seem to understand that.
re: 134
You are absolutely right, Lorain: Freedom of Conscience not only requires that the state not impose its values on Churches, but that Churches not impose their values on the state (or, to be more precise, that Churches not use the state to impose their values on others). Remember, Democracy is not the ultimate law of the land. The founders established the Bill of Rights because it believed that there were certain principles which even the will of the majority should not violate (freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, etc). One of those principles is freedom of conscience. Just because the majority supposedly supports one particular version of “traditional marriage” does not mean they have the right to impose that version on others. They can and by all means should promote their version by persuasion. When they use the law to force it on other faiths and all people, they overstep their bounds and violate that important founding principle.
Comment by Derek — November 24, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
I have an appointment to take my daughter to, but I’m fascinated by this discussion, so if anyone addresses me, please be assured that I will check in later to see the progress of this thread.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Lorian #175, I thought that the video(s) did a pretty good job of addressing your points also.
Comment by Stephanie — November 24, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
and i support your decision to live a heterosexual lifestyle without having to support “traditional marriage” amendments.
Comment by mfranti — November 24, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
152: “But you know exactly what I meant.”
If it looks like a dodge, and quacks like a dodge, I’m going to call this one a dodge.
Comment by Mark N. — November 24, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Lets get back to the Gay response to Prop 8 for a moment…
Whether or not you believe Gay marriage is a right or not, or whether you believe the Church or Church members has a right to voice their opinion or not, the vote is now over. It is what it is. The nagging issue that remains is the way the Gay community has responded to their “loss”, and especially of their direct attack on the LDS Church and its members.
The Gay community cannot expect the majority of society to turn a blind eye to their militant, destructive, disrespectful, hateful and bigoted behavior towards the Church. Hate does not breed positive results, and the hatefulness of the Gay community is being clearly demonstrated to us now. Not everyone is acting out, yes we know, but those people are not on the news every night. And the Gay leadership has done precious little to decry the acts and words of hate.
Most Americans will find it ironic that a group who has begged for an end to hatred and discrimination would turn like vicious dogs to rend their neighbors who excercised their right to speak up in a Democracy. What does this say for the Gay community? You don’t ask for respect and then heap disrespect on your neighbors. You don’t ask for love and understanding and then show you have none yourself. You will be judged harshly for this response, and it will show up in the courts and in the polls and in the workplace.
The Gay community has had the wrong approach for a long time. The best example to me is Gay Pride parades. Here you have a bunch of Gay people making a big public to-do; parading in drag, many nearly naked, acting lewdly, wearing condoms, etc. etc. Exactly what outcome do you expect an activity like this to have? Will it make straight people feel more comfortable around Gay people? Will it make people in the community think you’re someone who should be trusted with an adopted child? Will they want their children to spend time in your home? Will a potential empolyer be so impressed that he will immediately set a goal to hire on LOTS of Gay people? The answers are obvious, but somehow the Gay community hasn’t caught on.
If you’re a minority trying to change your image and get some respect, then you must behave in such a way that people will actually respect you. You can’t do things that alienate the majority and then demand that you be given respect. It doesn’t work that way. That’s why the Gay marriage issue is not making any headway.
Gays need to get off the marriage “re-definition” and first work on the basic rights. You can’t expect the majority to swallow a pill like this when only a few percent of the population really cares about your issues. You might as well try to re-define what ‘Baseball’ means!. I think Elton John made a statement about this and I think he’s right - don’t try to call it a marriage. Get the same rights, but call it something else. Its too traditional an institution. Its too sacred.
And practice what you preach. If you want tolerance and love, then demonstrate it. Acting like a bunch of thugs will just erase much of the ground gained in recent years to get you more respect and equality. You’re going backwards.
Neal
Comment by Neal — November 24, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
My goodness but a lot of words are still being sloughed off on this subject~
Faithful dissident asks: How do we heal from the Prop 8 situation?
By realizing that if you are in a heterosexual marriage or thinking of entering into one, NOTHING would have changed about YOUR choices had Prop 8 failed.
If you are in a good hetero relationship, NOTHING would have changed about your choices had Prop 8 failed. If you are in a bad hetero relationship, NOTHING would have changed about your choices had Prop 8 failed. If your child was born hetero, NOTHING would have changed about his/her choices had Prop 8 failed (irrespective about what may or may not be taught in one or another public school classroom). Homosexuality is not catching.
The ONLY PEOPLE who were affected by Prop 8 are gay. Insofar as numerous legal and financial rights are associated by the government to a married state, Prop 8 is rather obviously discriminatory to a subgroup of citizens. If you voted for Prop 8, heal by taking responsibility for your error. Resolve to fix it at the next voting opportunity. If you voted against Prop 8, heal by working on the next campaign. Good Grief. This ain’t rocket science folks.
Comment by Betty Jo — November 24, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
Neal, if you substitute “black” for gay, your #181 could’ve been straight out of the civil rights movement.
No minority group has ever had their rights handed to them. It’s always been a fight. And the group that holds the power has always demonised those who are involved in that fight.
Comment by Quimby — November 24, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
WARNING: This is a sincere question, It is not value loaded. I am really wondering.
It seems to me that there really is not a lot of research on the relative advantages of male-female child rearing as opposed to same-sex child rearing. Am I wrong about this? Do we honstly know whether children in a same-sex marriage family do better, worse or the same as a chidlren in a mroe traditional family? If you are aware of studies, I would be interested in cites or links.
Comment by Martin Willey — November 24, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
[…] hear that in a Darth Vader kind of voice). Almost every post on the subject begins with: “I know we’re sick of this.” That’s more or less how the SLTrib article concludes: It is not clear, however, […]
Pingback by Any Publicity is Good Publicity « Danger West — November 24, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
I don’t understand something. It has been said several times on this site that the church could “make it right” by supporting civil unions and other gay rights legislation in Utah. If accomplished, that would bring Utah to where California is with domestic partnerships. Would that be enough to make the no on 8 crowd happy? No. If it were, then Prop 8 wouldn’t have been an issue in the first place. Based on comments like Betty Jo’s #184, nothing short of completely rescinding the position and fighting for gay marriage would bring “healing”. I really don’t see the church doing that anytime soon, so assuming that at least some of the membership of the church continues to support its leaders, is healing possible at all?
More specifically, FD asked this:
If the only option for “healing” is the church reversing its position and fighting for gay marriage, then “healing” may not come, whcih means that many people will me more angry at us and things may get even more ugly, the persecution more intense, the temptation to retaliate even more stronger. What then? What are we going to do about it?
Comment by Stephanie — November 24, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
If you would like to learn how to make your voice heard at the state and local level, please attend one of these citizen lobbyist training sessions.
Thursday, January 24, 2008 7 p.m.
Saturday, January 26, 2008 10 a.m.
Location: Bountiful American Legion Hall, 52 West 200 South
If you live somewhere else in Utah and need info on citizen lobbyist training- post your county/town and I’ll try to hook you up with something.
Another way to help:
Join EqualityUtah and get hooked up with their community action team: http://www.equalityutah.org/CommunityActionTeams.html
Also on that sight, get tips on contacting your representatives, writing letters to the editor and helpful talking points. Good at talking to people on the phone? Shy, but great at writing letters? Hate all of that but want to help and happen to be really good at data entry? Hopefully, EqualityUtah is overwhelmed with volunteers right now but make sure whatever you have to offer, you do. If they don’t suggest something you think you can do, find something. Have no time but can give money? That’s great too.
We have a month and a half to get our act together. What are we waiting for?
The church has said they would support greater rights for gay people in Utah. You have the imprimatur. I hope you have the internal prompting as well, to know this is the right thing to do. SO LET’S DO IT. Talking about it is great but know we need to act.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 24, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
#110 Stephanie
Sigh. My decision was made only through much deliberation and prayer. The I will be very sad if my TR is revoked for a personal decision of conscience that allows me to look my brother in the eyes. It was the only compromise I could make that brought me any peace after nearly an entire day in supplication over the issue. I shifted to obeying the spirit of the law- returning 10% of my increase back to the Lord. I trust it’s being used in a way that doesn’t keep me up at night, unlike the Prop 8 debacle.
I continue to pray about it and as always, will receive what I need, when it’s required. Yes, I’ll be sad to be kept from the temple, if that is the consequence…but Stephanie, long before I set foot in the temple, I received the Lord’s guidance and will continue to receive it, whenever I ask for it. That’s just been my experience. He knows my heart and my conscience is clear. I will be at peace with whatever comes.
Comment by Kimberly — November 24, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
Kimberly, it would be sad, but it is likely. I don’t think that even paying 10% in Fast Offerings counts as a full tithe (if it did, I might be tempted to put all my 10% into the Perpetual Education Fund - my personal favorite charity). I am not passing judgement on your choice, just feeling sad for/with you. Either way, you lose something. Also, I wasn’t trying to say that you wouldn’t be able to seek the guidance of the Lord - just not go to the temple to do it (as you had pointed out that you do).
Comment by Stephanie — November 24, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
Kimberly, Betty Jo, Quimby and mfranti, all such bright shining lights. Thank you.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 24, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
#184
Thank You, if your for or against it, take action.
#188 Anything, including pushing for civil unions in the State of California (even if it’s not perfect) by Mormon’s and the citizenry of Utah would make me very happy. I am Gay and I am telling you that your excusses for sitting back and doing nothing at all even if it might not be perfect would go a long way in healing the rift.
Here is a link to an incident that happened in Utah. Mormon followers attacking woman protesters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTZd7E1gmCo
Do something please!!!!
Comment by Debbie — November 24, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
Debbie, I’ve seen that you tube video, and I also received this email written by a young Mormon man who was at the LA Temple guarding it that night:
I was at the Los Angeles Temple assisting in the
security efforts. . . At one point we
had let in about 20 police vehicles through the gates because they were afraid their vehicles would be damaged as civilian cars were being vandalized . . .Two full squads of LAPD in riot gear set up their base inside the
temple grounds while SWAT vehicles and hundreds of officers followed the crowds run up Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards. I’ve heard that the crowd was estimated to be over 2,500. When I arrived, all of the gates were shut and a small group of members had to remain outside the grounds as the direction was to turn away others who had come to assist . . . When the crowd turned back
towards the temple from West Hollywood , we opened the gate to those members still outside so they would not be trapped in the crowd. The officers inside the temple grounds made a line on the front lawn by the fence. At one
point, with 7 news and police helicopters overhead, the crowd began to climb the fence and it looked like there was going to be a lot of trouble . . . While I was there, I was not aware of anyone actually breaching the
fence, but we were asked to move far across the parking lot as they were anticipating the need to shoot tear gas canisters. . . And yes, there was an incident with some of our members who had gone to remove
the protest signs from the front fence. One of the protesters did
initiate physical contact with one of our sisters so the details are uncertain as to whether the response was fully justified.
Does anyone else have information about that incident? The video says that five young women were attacked because of “hate”, but it never actually says what side they were on. It implies that they were protestors, but is it possible that the woman on the video was the Mormon sister that protestors initiated contact with? I haven’t seen any other details besides that video and this email.
Comment by Stephanie — November 24, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
re: 183
How many gay families do you personally know, Neal? How many gay pride events have you attended? Your slanderous description of gay people bespeaks a certain ignorance of these “vicious dogs” you seem to find so offensive. What a truly offensive comment. (Lest I be accused of being over-sensitive, replace ‘Gays’ with ‘Jews’ in the comment and see how it reads.)
Your assertion that “the gay community has had the wrong approach for a long time” doesn’t hold up to examination either. Even vehement opponents agree that gays have made dramatic political progress in a short period of time compared to other civil-rights movements.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 24, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
Continuing my comment #194 - What if the woman in the video is the protestor who “initiated physical contact with one of our sisters”, and was “attacked” to protect that sister? I’m not saying that it was right, but it sure is a different story than what the video would lead you to believe.
Comment by Stephanie — November 24, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Debbie, Lorian and others,
I also mean this sincerely and humbly and not in any accusatory way - in the same light as your questions about what we are doing:
What are you doing to stop the vandalism and interruption of sacrament meetings and protesting at temples and physical intimidation being done by your side? I abhor any such actions on either side, and I think it is indisputable that much more of it is being carried out by one side than the other. So, what are you doing to stop it?
Sincerely, if you want to start any healing, the vandalism and name-calling and really nasty stuff has to stop. What are you doing to stop it?
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
#195 - What Mike said. Prop 8 lost by 4% Neal; that is a huge jump from the last vote.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Debbie, #193 - I appreciate your suggestion to do anything. Pushing for civil unions is something I can do (when I have the opportunity - I am not in CA or UT). But, definitely when the fight comes to a national level, I plan to push for civil unions. But, still, I have to honestly ask - is that enough? Is anything short of campaigning for and voting for a union between two women being called “marriage” good enough?
My personal preference is for civil unions granted by the state for everyone and marriages performed by churches. When someone says, “Well, my personal preference is for civil unions granted by the state for everyone and marriages performed by churches, but in the absence of that, I voted against Prop 8″, they are viewed positively (or at least not torn to shreds). However, when I say, “Well, my personal preference is for civil unions granted by the state for everyone and marriages performed by churches, but in the absence of that, I voted for Prop 8″ (since, as far as I can tell, the rights in California are the same for same sex couples, it really is just the definition that changes), I am torn to shreds and called a bigot. So, is fighting for civil unions/domestic partnerships really enough? Will it really heal the divide? I hope so, but I honestly don’t think so.
Comment by Stephanie — November 24, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
197
That’s easy. No one gets to talk bigoted crap about Mormons in my presence, I don’t contribute or associate with groups that do and if I discovered that a group I supported financially, did those things, in the infamous words of ATAL, I. WOULD. STOP. SENDING. THEM. MONEY.
And on another note, Ray,and yes, I think we’re “close” enough for me to say this, your whole attitude to the prop 8 debate strikes me as uncharacteristically stagnant. I don’t hear any struggle or shifting in your view. Cool if you want to stake a stand and defend it to all comers but I don’t think it’s as strong a stance as, say, Stephanie’s, who seems to be really struggling to reconcile her love of her church with her impulse to extend the love it has taught her to all people, gay or straight. You seem complacent and in my view, that’s never a good thing. And if I’m wrong…I’ll send my four fastest ships to apologize…
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 24, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
What crazywomancreek said.
I don’t support vandalism, and if I knew of someone who perpetrated violence or vandalism on a church, I would report them to the police. I don’t know of anyone engaging in violence or vandalism, though, other than the handful of widely-publicized reports I’ve seen in the news. I’ve been to many protests in the past few weeks, but every single one of them has been peaceful. The only ugliness I have witnessed at any of these protests has been from people driving by, many of them with Christian stickers of one sort or another on their cars, screaming things like f****** fa***** and flipping us off. Even with my two 7-yr-old daughters standing with me. I’m unnerved at the violent level of hatred directed at us for peacefully protesting our civil rights being taken away. One man nearly ran me over in a crosswalk, then screamed f****** homo at me as he roared past.
So, yeah, if anyone maligns LDS or makes untruthful statements about them in my presence, I, as I have always done, defend the truth and defend those LDS of my family and acquaintance who have always treated me with kindness and respect, and those LDS people who told me how upset and horrified they were by what the LDS church was doing to gays by way of their participation in Prop 8. But I cannot and will not ignore the fact that the LDS Church at large just drew a bead on my family and hit us squarely between the eyes, and that many of my LDS neighbors willingly and wholeheartedly supported and helped that happen.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
Stephanie,
You know Stephanie, don’t worry about healing the country’s division on prop 8. You can’t heal the world but you can heal your your own heart. If supporting Civil Unions feels right to you, then go for it.
Comment by Debbie — November 24, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
You are wrong, cwc, but I’m fine without the ships coming to rescue me - since every ship is necessary to defend against imaginary attacks. You can keep them all in the harbor to defend against the attacks I’m not making but you are seeing. *very big grin*
I’m old enough to have “shifted” substantially on this issue over time. Much of the perception of my stance is that I don’t like inconsistency and one-sided arguments - so I end up addressing comments that exhibit those traits. Those comments tend to be the most extreme on both sides. That means I end up on predominantly liberal sites being called too conservative, while I end up on predominantly conservative sites being called too liberal - all because I tend to believe the best solutions lie somewhere in the middle of the extremes.
Frankly, and as bluntly as I can say this while still grinning from ear to ear, I have found that my current path is MUCH harder to walk and requires a complete lack of complacency - while advocating most extremes is incredibly easy. It’s very difficult and taxing to read every single comment in a post before commenting, try to read very carefully every word everyone says, remember the gist and general content of every comment, go back and re-read former comments prior to responding to make sure you aren’t misinterpreting, consider each word in a comment to which you respond and what it might mean, look for any ways to read it charitably (seeing, for example, where a particular word used probably, based on overall context, means what a different word would have conveyed better), contemplate the best way to structure a response, re-read each response you construct, edit it at least once before submitting it, etc. Honestly, I go through that process almost every time I comment, and there is no complacency involved in it. (For example, I have re-read this comment three times over the course of nearly 15 minutes, and this parenthetical is the last thing I am typing before submitting this comment. That’s not rare.)
I try to tackle every issue of every topic of every post that same way - reading each and every comment for insight into how it can influence my own view of the topic. This approach has molded my view on many issues over the years, and those views have changed and continue to change. It’s just that I tend to respond publicly to the comments that are the most extreme (on both sides of whatever the issue is being discussed), so my comments generally are more in response to others than passionate statements of my own beliefs. Every once in a while, I write those here, but they are nowhere near the majority of my comments.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
And as for Neal, your comments make me profoundly tired. Since when did peaceful protest in this country become classified as “behaving badly?” This country is all about the right to free speech and peaceful free assembly.
Anyone who has committed an act of violence or vandalism (and that is a tiny, tiny number by comparison with the number of people in this nation who have demonstrated peacefully regarding Prop 8 these past few weeks) is fully responsible for his or her own actions. No one else is reponsible for them, any more than members of the LDS church who did NOT participate in helping to pass Prop 8 are responsible for what I consider to be the bad behavior of their fellow-LDS. Nor is every Christian responsible for the actions of those who called themselves Christians, yet drove by the corner where I stood protesting with my children and had THEIR 5 or 6-year-old daughter lean out the window and flip her middle finger at us!
There has been bad behavior on all sides over this issue, but those who have not engaged in it are not responsible for it.
As to your complaint:
Let me just remind you that gay people come from myriad places, groups, careers, economic classes, religious organizations. We are as different and as varied as the general population. We are equally represented in all different racial and social classes, groups and categories. We live in the city, in the country, and in the suburbs.
While there are certainly people who take upon themselves positions of actively seeking equality and justice on behalf of gay people, it is important to remember that we are a “community” only because banding together to support one another’s rights and safety has been thrust upon us by society’s discriminatory treatment of us.
We do not have a monolithic “leadership and authority structure,” we have no “hierarchy.” In fact, in the past couple of decades as some of us have begun to gain a handful of rights, piecemeal and some of the more overt hatefulness of gays has begun to fade, many of us have been content to just live our lives quietly, blending in to the best of our abilities, not closeted, but not working as activists to organize other gays to work together as a “community.”
Prop 8 has changed all that. We realize that our mistake was in believing that if we lived quietly and peacefully amongst our neighbors, looking pretty much like them and living out our very typical familial existences, that we would no longer draw the hatred, the despite, the revulsion and the discrimination of our neighbors. Prop 8 taught us quite a different story. Standing on the corner, holding up a sign begging for the goodwill and consideration of my town, standing at the polling place, begging the mercy and justice of my neighbors who had come to vote on my marriage to my beloved partner of over 17 years, and having many of those neighbors tell me to go to h***, go to Sodom and Gomorrah, tell me I’m a pervert, tell me I should have my children taken away… Well, I guess I found out that living quietly and peacefully in my suburban neighborhood, raising my two children to be moral, loving, honorable members of society, volunteering in their school, playing in the local symphony, helping my partner operate our accounting software business… none of that counted for anything. In the eyes of many of my neighbors, I still remained just a pervert. A f******* homo. Worthless. Evil.
So, yeah. The whole approach you suggest, Neal, that whole thing about….
…um… not so much. Invisibility or transparency just leads people to believe they don’t know any gay people, and makes them think they can do things like passing Prop 8 because, you know, it doesn’t really affect any real people anyway. It’s just about those dirty gays you see on TV. It doesn’t hurt real people.
Comment by Lorian — November 24, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
This will be interesting to watch unfold. I have to think that the church was smart enough and consulted legal counsel as to not violate any rules, but the investigation must be done.
Comment by Stephanie — November 24, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Oh, and cwc, I expect you to be more passionate about this topic than I will be. It is more personal to you than to me, and it hits you much harder than it hits me. If that means I appear to be more “complacent” about this particular topic than you are, perhaps that is a fair statement. It just doesn’t mean I am a complacent person.
Comment by Ray — November 24, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
#197
Ray, surely you are not suggesting that because I am gay that I am responsible for bad behavior out of violence committed by protesters of prop 8? I know I certainly don’t hold you Ray responsible for the violent displays by some Mormon’s that attacked anti prop 8 protesters. Or feel that you are personally responsible for the Tonga Mormons who in a fit of rage at the anti prop 8 protesters started defacing their own churches property?
You are clearly side stepping the original post of this blog which I attempted answer with all sincerity with my post #149.
What are you doing Ray? How are your comments relevant to the post?
Comment by Debbie — November 25, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Debbie, we are done. If you can say what you have said in your own comments and then twist mine like you did in #207, there is no point in continuing this conversation. I could say more, but I won’t. We are done.
Comment by Ray — November 25, 2008 @ 12:27 am
This manifesto is one of the most beautiful expressions on the issue I have heard. I love TheFaithfulDissident’s thoughtfulness and true effort to be understanding.
Re: 183: That is just what I have thought for a long time. If we agree with gay rights activists, we are tolerant. If not, we are targeted with hate and nastiness. Where is the tolerance they demand? They want to receive it, but by and large refuse to give it.
And those attacking Neal, face it. If members of your group (or my group, or whatever) behave badly, it is your responsibility to speak up. As many Mormons have done who opposed Prop 8. Moderate Muslims are not taken seriously because they don’t speak out about opposing co-religionists who drive planes into buildings. On an admittedly lesser scale, pro-gay rights individuals will never be taken seriously if they don’t speak out about the really mean things that people who speak for them do. (And yes, they DO speak for the gay community if they are the ones speaking up and no one contradicts them.) It’s nice and all that some of you won’t let people say mean things about Mormons in your presence, but the loud voices are not the conciliatory voices, but the hateful ones who refuse to give the tolerance they demand.
Furthermore, as I understand it, gays have ALL THE RIGHTS of marriage in California, but it’s called something else. Why does it have to be called marriage? Seriously, this question is not meant to be rude, but a true question. If gays have the rights, why do they have to have the name?
Comment by Molly — November 25, 2008 @ 12:34 am
Molly, I’d turn your question around on you:
If you are okay with gays having all the same rights, why can’t they have the name?
Comment by Quimby — November 25, 2008 @ 12:38 am
Quimby:
“No minority group has ever had their rights handed to them. It’s always been a fight. And the group that holds the power has always demonised those who are involved in that fight”
Hmmm. Gay marriage isn’t a right, especially a “civil right”. Rights are afforded to us by law, and unless the people support creation of that law, you have no such right. I believe that’s what the people in California just said with their vote. You’re falling into the trap that has caused your efforts for “equality” to fail. The Gay Rights movement has tried to copy and use the tactics of the Civil Rights movement. But in the case of marriage, you’re talking about something thats altogether different. Like I said, if you dropped the insistance on re-definition you would get a lot further.
Mike:
“How many gay families do you personally know, Neal? How many gay pride events have you attended? Your slanderous description of gay people bespeaks a certain ignorance of these “vicious dogs” you seem to find so offensive. What a truly offensive comment.”
Quite a few, since I’m a homo myself! And people ARE acting like viscious dogs, or haven’t you seen the reports of violence, vandalism, intimidation, threats, and other inappropriate behaviors. Pointing this out isn’t slander - its simply pointing it out. If you don’t think this affects the perception of all Gay people then you’re the one with a certain “ignorance”.
Lorian:
“Invisibility or transparency just leads people to believe they don’t know any gay people,”
And bad behavior erases the gains you’ve already made and justifies the false perceptions people have about Gays. You need to get over yourself and find a constructive way to get your message across. You have two disadvantages coming out of the gate - first, Gays only make up a tiny percentage of the population (maybe 3%). Its harder to get any momentum going with that small a percentage, although there has been a surprising amount of progress as was pointed out earlier. Second, you don’t have the moral high ground. Blacks did in the Civil Rights movement, but Gays can easily be marginalized becuase their lifestyle is considered “sinful, perverted”, etc,etc. as you said. That means you have to take extra measures not to come across negatively.
I don’t live a Gay lifestyle even though I’m a homosexual, but I do sympathize with my Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters. I don’t think the definition of marriage should be re-defined to include same-sex couples, and I think you’re losing ground by choosing to fight that battle. Call it something else. I do think you should have all the legal rights currently afforded to any other couple, however.
This is an emotional time for many, but emotions aren’t going to get you anywhere. Clear thinking and appropriate (civil, respectful) action and dialog will. I don’t see a lot of that happening yet. All I see is you losing ground. None of these negative events is going to make your neighbors change their mind. You need a new strategy.
I hope I’ve given you some food for thought.
Neal
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 12:46 am
Neal, you are missing my point: People have NEVER supported the creation of law when it pertains to extending rights to others. Those who have wanted the rights, have had to DEMAND them and FIGHT for them and have been demonised in so doing, just as you are now demonising the GLBT community.
Comment by Quimby — November 25, 2008 @ 12:55 am
And most of the time, those rights have not come through the ballot box, but through the courts. Because, again, people aren’t just going to hand over equal rights. It’s always a fight.
Comment by Quimby — November 25, 2008 @ 12:56 am
#208 Ray,
I firmly believe that I did not twist your comments. Your questioning me on what I am doing to stop the violence WAS addressed in my comments #149. I purposely posted the list of what I was doing because I felt I was falling away from the question. Possibly I thought you didn’t read it, because if you had your question to me on post #197 was unfair.
I am attending a prayer rally on Thanksgiving. We will be praying for positive change, we will be praying that equal rights will be restored to the citizens of CA again.
It’s not fair Ray that you can’t give an answer to your own questions.
Comment by Debbie — November 25, 2008 @ 1:20 am
Quimby,
Amen! Especially if you couldn’t even vote in the first place due to your gender : )
Comment by Debbie — November 25, 2008 @ 1:22 am
As I said, we are done.
Comment by Ray — November 25, 2008 @ 1:24 am
So, um, it seems like we’ve degenerated back into more arguments over whether or not gay marriage is moral, legal, a civil right, etc. I personally don’t feel like anyone reads my posts, even when I try to be helpful. See post # 82 if you’re interested in reading my prior comment.
Personally, I think that maybe we need to set aside the marriage issue for a little while. There were a few court cases back in the 90’s, one in Hawaii and one in Alaska where same-sex couples sued to have the right to marriage. As a result, amendments sprang up across the country, and this blew up into a huge issue. I’m not saying that it isn’t still super-important. In fact, this is one I feel very strongly about, but I’m realizing that maybe we need to get back to the basics for a minute.
Right now I’d just like for people to recognize that I’m not an inherently bad person for being gay. I may be a sinner, but I don’t lie, cheat, steal, or kill. I try to follow a personal ethical code and treat other people the way that I want to be treated. Fact of the matter is though, in 30 states in this country, I can be fired just for being gay. I can be refused housing by a landlord that doesn’t like gay people. And aggression against gay people is still on the rise. I haven’t heard of anyone that is Mormon dying recently because of their religion, but in just the past month there have been 2 murders of LGBT people that made national headlines.
Also, people seem to think that I shouldn’t be able to adopt or raise children because I’m gay. They would rather that those kids grow up in an orphanage, or other places where the child’s best interests aren’t observed.
We can argue all we want about marriage, but unless we sit down together and talk about our lives and try to understand one another, we are never going to get anywhere. We are much more similar as people than we are different.
Also, Neal, unlike the LDS Church, there is no leadership in the gay community. Not that I expect you to follow the news of the LGBT community, but the largest gay rights group in the country, the Human Rights Campaign, is on the fritz. They are being regarded as outdated and too reactive instead of proactive. The other thing is that the LGBT community is an eclectic collection of individuals that are extremely different and all have different priorities. There is no way any one person could represent everyone in the community, because we all have different experiences.
Personally, right now I am just looking for a place of peace. A place where I don’t have to feel like I hide who I am and where I can openly speak about my life. I still live with my parents due to financial difficulties and a whole host of other reasons (I’m still in college) and although they have known for 5 years, they still can’t even bring themselves to ask if I’m dating anyone. It doesn’t even feel like they care about me at all given the infrequency of their inquiries into my life, and they still haven’t told my 14 year old sister that I’m gay even though it is ok for her to watch TV shows where gay characters are depicted.
There are a lot of fences to be mended and bridges to be built. We don’t have to start with the issues where there seems to be no possibility for agreement. We should start with the areas where we can find common ground. And if anyone wants to talk to me personally, That could totally be arranged.
Peace!
Nate
Comment by nategiggles — November 25, 2008 @ 2:36 am
re: 211
What on earth is “a gay lifestyle” ??
Do you mean any homosexual who is not celibate/chaste?
Please keep blogging though, Neal. You could become the Roy Cohn of the Bloggernacle!
As for these “vicious dogs” who are vandalizing churches: they are few, but get a lot of publicity in the conservative media. Odd, that.
To assert that gays tend to be hateful and violent and defile temples is as believable as claiming that Fred Phelps represents Christianity.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 25, 2008 @ 2:39 am
To me, one thing that is broken in our political system is that judges have too much latitude to fill constitutional gaps by decree.
The huge division here is that one side takes the position that the California state constitution already guaranteed a fundamental right to same-sex marriage and it has just taken this long for the people and the courts to “wake up”.
The other side takes the position that marriage isn’t a fundamental right, but a privilege granted and defined by the state. To me, this division is there because there is a gap in the constitution - simply because those who wrote the constitution at the time had no reason to believe that anyone would ever request same-sex marriage.
To me, the problem is that unelected judges can make up new language and, in effect, insert it into a constitution that was originally crafted and amended by democratic and representative processes.
In my opinion it would be more appropriate for the judges to point out to the legislature that there is a gap in the state constitution and direct the legislature to come up with the appropriate language to fill the gap. At least with that process, people would have a chance to communicate their concerns to their representatives and there would be a greater chance that changes could be made that would address the needs of the one group while building in protections against unintended consequences for other groups.
I am a middle child.
Comment by BrentW — November 25, 2008 @ 3:14 am
Mike,
I already have my own web site, thank you. And there are quite a few of us who live Church standards and are happy to do so.
Gay lifestyle = sexaully active with same-sex partners and / or socailly identifying with the Gay community. And you’re missing the point. I don’t think I need to make it again, as long as you want to continue your verbal attack
[edited — and tone it down Neal or we will ban you — the management]
Nate,
I don’t hate you and would be happy to talk to you any time. Here’s my refuge of peace:
www.lds-ssa.org
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 7:36 am
CWC, thank you for channelling all your passion for the greater good by rolling up your sleeves and taking action. You are an inspiration to us all, and I mean that.
Djinn, thank you for being so awesomely strong and intelligent. I whole heartedly agree with your comments.
I wish the Church leadership would understand it has everything to gain and nothing to lose by embracing our gay brothers and sisters. Embracing the evangelical right - not so much.
Comment by newbie — November 25, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Newbie,
I guess that depends on what you mean by “embracing”. The Church will not likely change its stance on the morals of homosexual relationships (or the morals of any sexual relationships outside marriage), and it will likely never back down on its stance on the definition of marriage. Other than that there isn’t anything else the Church doesn’t “embrace” that I’m aware of. They’re far more loving and accepting of homosexuals than many of the “evangelical” denominations (i.e. you chose to be Gay and you’re going to burn in hell). Do you really know what the Church teaches about this? Go to LDS.ORG and look up Elder Holland’s article in the October 2007 Ensign, if you’d like a better perspective.
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 10:23 am
Here’s an interesting link on the whole issue. Mormon perspective:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Latter-day_Saints_and_California_Proposition_8
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 10:41 am
management - not to worry, I’m just passing through anyway…
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 11:11 am
#216
Promise?
Comment by Debbie — November 25, 2008 @ 11:38 am
225 Don’t bait Ray. It’s rude and he’s really not the problem. Here are ways he’s fighting back: he promotes civil unions for all, he has never (to my knowledge) promoted prop 8, he has sought to understand gay and lesbian perspectives, he has offered prayers for people who are hurt by prop 8.
224 Before you go, you might want to apologize to Mike for being so aggressively obnoxious. I can’t really comment on any of your statements because I imagine the self-loathing of a celibate (in your circumstance) gay man completely heartbreaking and I don’t imagine you want my pity.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 25, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
#226
My comment to Ray on #225 was fascesious. I’ve already stated my feelings around my frustration with Ray. It’s okay for me to be frustrated.
Comment by Debbie — November 25, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
And where is the management now, I wonder?
No self loathing here. I’m perfectly happy. And no apolgies either…
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
#226
I also wanted to say that personally I’m a hugh admirer of your point of view. Even if I wasn’t I would never ask you to apologize for comments that you’ve made in response to someone else’s post other than your own. If somehow I’ve stepped outside the blog rules then I apologize.
Comment by Debbie — November 25, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Neal:
Neal, so not true. Please review the US Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, which clarifies the fact that marriage IS a civil right.
To what “bad behavior,” exactly, are you referring, Neal? You accuse me of bad behavior. Please prove your claim or renounce it.
Whatever you may think about the subject, our nations laws are clear: Peaceful Assembly is a civil right in this country. You seem to be somewhat confused about the nature of civil rights. Peaceful demonstration does not equate to “bad behavior.”
Neal, the fact that you have chosen a lifetime of celibacy due to your religious beliefs does not make being gay “sinful.” There is no reason why I should approach the pursuit of my valid and reasonable civil rights from a place of shame or apology. I understand that you apparently experience shame for your natural desire to love other men, but this does not mean that gay people as a group must behave as though who we are is something shameful. It isn’t.
Comment by Lorian — November 25, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
BrentW: #219
You express dissatisfaction with the design of our government. You don’t think judges should be able to establish that groups of people have civil rights based upon the unconstitutionality of laws which they review.
But, Brent, this IS, and ever has been, our system of government. If you disapprove of it, you will need to change the constitutions of the states and of the federal government to reflect your new way of doing things.
Consider (again, as I pointed out to Neal in my above post) the case of Loving v. Virginia. The Lovings wished to be married in the state of Virginia, but could not do so because the wife-to-be was black while her prospective husband was white, and Virginia was one of the states which still, in 1967, had an “antimiscegenation” law on the books.
When the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Virginia’s antimiscegenation law, they declared, not that Virginia must pass a new law which specifically accorded to mixed-race couples the right to marry in Virginia, but rather, that all miscegenation laws everywhere in the country were simultaneously invalidated due to the fact that they unconstitutionally disenfranchised citizens of the civil right to marry a person of a different race. The civil right to marry a person of another race (this is crucial!) already existed. Antimiscegenation laws unconstitutionally deprived citizens of their existing right to marry a person of another race. The court did not GIVE the right to Mr. Loving to marry his African-American wife. He HAD the right. The court simply cleared away the obstacle of Virginia’s unconstitutional law prohibiting him from doing so.
The same is true here in California in the recent case “In re Marriage Cases.” The court found that gay people DO have the same civil rights as straight people, and that same gender couples DO HAVE, already existing under the state’s constitutional provisions for marriage and for the protection of the rights of minorities, including gays, the right to engage in civil marriage. They simply cleared away the obstacle of the state’s unconstitutional Prop 22 law which declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. As in the case of Loving v. Virginia, there was no need to refer the matter to the legislature to write a law validating gay marriage, because the court already determined that (again, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia) the right already existed under California’s constitution, just as the right for people of different races to marry one another existed under the US Constitution in Loving.
Does this clarify why claims that justices “legislate from the bench” are factually incorrect? I hope so.
Comment by Lorian — November 25, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
I think we need to understand that “healing” doesn’t mean that either side is going to be 100% satisfied with the solution. Bridge-building doesn’t mean that one side just takes over the other. We are never going to convince either side that the other is right. However, I don’t think that means that we can’t negotiate.
This is what I would like to see from the Church:
-A formal, official apology for certain mistakes that the LDS Church has made in its treatment of homosexuals — and YES, we HAVE made mistakes. I think that we need to apologize for things like electroshock therapy at BYU, convincing gays to get married in order to be “cured,” and those who were wrongfully excommunicated (i.e. those who were gay but not sexually active).
-I think that the Church also needs to have open dialogue with Affirmation, instead of avoiding them, which it did for about 30 years, from what I understand. I don’t think that Affirmation realistically expects the Church to change it’s doctrine, but an apology such as the one I outlined above would mean a great deal.
-Lastly, the Church has to stop using its influence to stop civil union laws in the state of Utah and elsewhere. If we’re going to build bridges, we can’t have our cake and eat it too.
This is what I would like to see from the gay community:
-Stronger condemnation of those who are involved with vandalism and harassment of those who voted YES on 8.
-Understanding that our theology is never going to change. Work on meeting us halfway, by not demanding that we change our doctrine on homosexuality or gay marriage, but rather focus on the things that Mormons can honestly do, such as a more vigorous support of civil unions.
-Take the high road and fight for what you believe is your civil right in a civilized manner, instead of simply labelling everyone who doesn’t support gay marriage as “hateful” or “bigot,” or resorting to vandalism. (This can easily go for the YES side as well.)
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 25, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Lorin,
Do you mind hold off making statements about the way I feel? I’m perfectly capable of expressing my own feelings and beliefs, and I’m not ashamed of anything. If you want to know how I feel about something, then just ask.
I believe you’re personalizing my remarks and perhaps that has lead you to some erroneous conclusions. I didn’t say YOU were behaving badly, I said some Gays were behaving badly and that, in turn, is reflecting badly on all of you. Now if you were one of the ones throwing garbage on the Temple grounds or vandalizing a Church, I would have to say you were indeed behaving badly. I’m sure that wasn’t the case, am I right?
Lorin, you do have a right to PEACEFUL assembly, as do I. You DO have a right to speak up on issues you feel are important to you. So do I! And so does my Church, or any other institution that feels they have a stake in the issue. You’re free to vote your conscience on these issues, and SO AM I. I respect that and I honor that. We may see the issue differenty, and that’s OK. We can have a difference of opinion without hateful words or violence. I’m simply excersicing the same Civil Rights you have to speak up and to vote my conscience. But I do decry any violence or hate-speech on either side of the argument. It is counter-productive in the extreme. Please re-read my comments.
And whether you or I consider gay sex sinful or not is not the point. The point is that a majority of the polulation does, and this puts Gays at a disadvantage when approaching issues like Gay marriage. You need a different approach if you’re going to overcome the obstacles that creates.
And the point on the Prop 8 vote - we’ll have to see where the courts go with this one. My impression was its purpose was establishing - constitutionally - that marriage is between a man and a woman. I’m not a lawyer, so I have no idea how “changeable” that is by the courts.
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Beautifully put Faithful! I think you hit the nail on the head!!
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
Someone upthread asked about research into same-sex parenting. There’s actually quite a bit of such research, much of which can be found through a google search. As a start:
Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the US: A social science perspective
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/AP_06_pre.PDF
American Psychological Association (APA) article that includes a list with lots of further readings at the end (this article is just an overview of research, but the articles at the end are reports on specific research studies)
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html
A Q/A type document from the APA about queer families
http://www.ppmcc.org/files/APA_Briefing_Sheet_on_Same-Sex_Families.pdf
Comment by epi — November 25, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
And one other comment to Stephanie upthread. You asked why people are fine with those who voted against prop 8 would prefer the government performed only civil unions and left marriages to religious entities, but these same people are upset with those who voted for prop 8 but hold essentially the same views. Speaking only for myself, this frustrates me because I haven’t seen anyone who holds that view who is interested in taking any actions to work towards changing the government’s stance on different-sex marriage. Right now, civil unions and domestic partnerships vary greatly based on state, and no state is required to recognize another state’s civil unions/domestic partnerships. Marriage is much more uniform across states, and fighting for the word marriage means that if the interstate recognition part of DOMA was repealed, other states would automatically recognize a couple’s same-sex marriage; this won’t happen with civil unions unless a huge amount of standardization and changes in law occur. I don’t see people advocating these changes on the different-sex marriage side, so I doubt at least the commitment of those who claim to want the government to only perform civil unions but act only to limit the government from performing same-sex marriages. Does that make sense?
Comment by epi — November 25, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Neal, I just want to apologize for my last sentence in the first paragraph of comment #218. Mentioning Roy Cohn was mean-spirited, totally inappropriate, and far beneath the standard I try to hold myself to when participating in the Bloggernacle. If I had the means to retract that statement, I would.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 25, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
And if you lose your temple recommend, then you won’t be able to go to the temple to seek the guidance of the Lord (like you indicate you have been doing). Is it worth losing that?
Since when is the guidance of the Lord only available at the temple?
Comment by Mark N. — November 25, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Mike,
Thanks for the apology. We apprently both said some things that were inappropriate. I’m sure the management could erase any comments you want to retract. They had no trouble erasing mine…
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
In situations which we don’t understand it’s best to follow the prophet. I personally lean more towards libertarian views. Live and let live. But I recognize that the Prophet sees more than I can see. There was a similar proposition in Florida which I voted in favor of. You can spin as much rhetoric as you want about personal choice, but remember your final temple endowment covenant. If you can’t trust the Lord with a vote, how can you trust him when he comes? I guess if you don’t believe what I believe, it’s different from you. But if you do believe in the Restoration, how can you not trust the Prophet? If you think those ideas are old-fashioned, what does that say about what influences you?
Comment by Jon — November 25, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Neal:
I’m sorry you feel that way, Neal, but that is why I qualified my statement with the word “apparently.” In other words, it appears to me that you may experience shame concerning your sexual orientation. I draw this conclusion from your counsel that I ought to approach asking for recognition of my civil rights as a gay person from a similar place of shame and apology. You state that I do not have the “moral high ground” and that I therefore need to be more careful in the way I go about requesting my rights from society. That sure sounds like shame to me. If you are not ashamed, then fine. But if so, then please stop suggesting that I ought to be.
Actually, Neal, you made the following statement directly to me in response to my statement that living quietly and peacefully and transparently in my community had not gained me the goodwill of my neighbors, but rather their assumption that I did not exist. Your response, directly to me about my statement concerning my life was:
That certainly sounds as though you are accusing me of bad behavior and of not finding “constructive ways” to get my message across.
Neal, where did you hear me challenge your right to hold your own beliefs, or your church’s right to teach what it teaches? I don’t believe I have suggested that at any point in this thread. What I DO claim, however, is that your personal religious beliefs and your church’s religious teachings should not have any bearing on my civil rights. And particularly should not have the power to deprive my CHILDREN of THEIR civil rights to the protections afforded through civil marriage to the children of married couples.
This is where your argument goes wrong, Neal. As I’ve already clearly explained, the religious beliefs of the majority do not give the majority the right to disenfranchise the minority. Else we would still have black slaves in this country and interracial marriage would still be banned. Those particular odious institutions were upheld in part by means of the argument that the religious beliefs of the majority supported them.
Comment by Lorian — November 25, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Epi, #235, thanks for responding to the question about research on gay families. I had intended to respond to that and forgot in the midst of all the other issues.
Comment by Lorian — November 25, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
#238 - Sorry for the misunderstanding. I clarified in comment #191 what I meant:
Thank you, Neal, for sharing your perspective.
Comment by Stephanie — November 25, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Lorian,
We will continue to disagree. If the Gay community doesn’t adopt a different approach (I like what Faithful suggested), I think you (the Gay community) will continue to lose ground. My opinion. End of story.
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Here is more on research regarding families headed by same sex couples.
http://www.slate.com/id/2097048/
Comment by Anononthis — November 25, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Neal, honest question, do you not consider yourself a member of the “gay community”? Because you seem to be acknowldging that you are a gay man, but then also reffering to a “gay community” or “lifestyle.” Are you not a member, though on another end of the spectrum?
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 25, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
re: 239
I have also noticed that civility enforcement in the Bloggernacle is a bit inconsistent at times….
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 25, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
mike,
would you like to come on and moderate and enforce every comment on this blog? every single one of them all day and all night long. I’m sure your hunny wouldn’t mind if you do.
folks, apologies to all. I haven’t been able to moderate the blog for a few days now and i don’t know how long it’s going to be.
Comment by mfranti — November 25, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
I didn’t mean to dis’ your moderation, mfranti. This blog ROCKS. You make the other LDS-themed blogs seem moribund.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 25, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
I agree. It’s a fascinating blog.
Comment by Lorian — November 25, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Neal, #244, I don’t think that the negative opinion of those who disapprove of public protest is going to be the deciding issue in the question of equal civil rights for gay-parented families. What will likely be the deciding issue will be the same thing which has been the deciding issue in nearly every case of recognition of the civil rights of a minority group in our country’s history: Supreme Court decisions.
If issues of protecting the civil rights of minorities could be accomplished by way of a popular vote, there would be little need to protect the civil rights of minorities.
Slaves were freed by way of the Emancipation Proclamation (an Executive Order, not a USSC decision, but not a popular vote, either). The 13th Amendment formally abolishing slavery did not come until the Executive order had been made and implemented.
The 14th and 15th Amendments were passed, of course, by congress and ratified by the states, however they did not functionally end up protecting full and equal civil rights for black citizens until they were used as the basis for USSC decisions such as Brown v. BOA and Loving v. Virginia.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 ended once and for all the issue of black persons being allowed to vote. The Voting Right Act, however, was an Act of Congress, not a popular vote, and would very like NOT have passed, had it been put to a popular vote. It was passed mostly as a result of the very types of political activism and public protest which we have been seeing since the passage of Prop 8.
You may wish to believe that visibility of an oppressed minority does not help their cause, but history has shown gays and lesbians that our visibility is the ONLY way to progress in the process of gaining the protection of our civil rights. As long as people believe that they don’t know anyone who is gay and have never seen a gay person, they have no compelling reason to stand for the cause of civil rights and protections for gays and their families.
Comment by Lorian — November 25, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
CWC,
Fair question.
“Gay” denotes an attitude, social belonging/group, and type of behavior. I don’t pariticipate in the social and sexual constructs the Gay community has developed and revolves around; therefore I don’t consider myself part of the ‘Gay community’. I don’t use the label “Gay” to describe myself. To say I’m a homosexual is an accurate description of my sexual attraction, but I don’t identify myself primarily by this one attribute. It is only a small part of who I am. I identify myself first and foremost as a Child of God. I consider other labels irrelevant (in fact, I hate labels).
I can say, however, that I do sympathize with the Gay community. I have Gay friends, work with Gay people, and of course there are many things we share that I can identify with. But I have many more straight friends than Gay friends, and so I see first hand the reaction they have to recent events. As I’ve said previously, what concerns me is the vicious response of some Gays and Gay leaders. I think this is reprehensible and irresponsible. It plays up all the fears straights have about Gays in the first place. Fear makes people do stupid things - even nice people.
Anyway, I’m soap-boxing again. Simple answer to your question - I’m a non-gay homosexual. I believe that’s the proper term psychologists give it.
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
Neal, we have a great deal in common. I agree with everything you say in this clipped passage, and would describe myself the same way. It is only the recent attempts of religious groups to deny my equal civil rights which have caused me to step outside my typical suburban existence and find members of the “gay community” with whom to ally myself in the attempt to protect one another from these onslaughts and attacks by those who are not in any way harmed by our existence or by us having civil rights protections.
It’s funny. I’ve heard you make several statements to this effect. As someone who grew up during the black civil rights movement of the 60’s, I remember these very comments being made about the “uppity” blacks who hit the streets, protesting for their rights, boycotting, picketing, holding vigils, making public speeches. They were told to go home, be quiet and behave themselves and eventually they would “prove” to everyone that they “deserved” civil rights. They were told that if they made a fuss and a spectacle of themselves, they would alienate all the white people who were the “source” of “granting” them their civil rights. They were told that protesting in the streets made them appear “frightening” and “threatening” to the white establishment, and that they would never “gain” their civil rights in this manner. That “scary black man” stereotype… Kind of like the “scary, icky gay people” stereotype.
I have no fear of those who fear me, Neal. I know that at some point my full civil equality will be protected just like that of other minority groups. It would be nice if that could happen in time for it to protect my children while they are still children, though. That’s the part which saddens me.
Comment by Lorian — November 25, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Lorin,
Visibility is one thing, hateful, destructive visibility is quite another. I believe something like 30 or more states have passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I think that number will be increasing, not decreasing, after recent events.
I honestly don’t think the Supreme Court is going to view this as a civil rights issue. They may say Gay couples should have all the rights of a heterosexual marriage, but I don’t think the Gay community’s insistance that the meaning of a word be changed to suit what THEY want will ever fly. Just my opinion. I think Gays have a much better chance of getting laws passed that make civil unions equal with marriage as far as benefits and legal instruments.
Have you ever heard the story about how to cook a frog? If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, the frog will immediately jump right out ot the pot. But if you put the frog in a pot of cool water he will kick around and explore the pot and get comfortable after a little while. Then, if you slowly turn up the heat, the frog will get cooked without even knowing it! Perhaps the Gay community needs to learn how to cook frogs. Think about it…
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
Lorin,
Just saw your last post after I posted my last post. Time will tell who is right here. I think there’s a better way for you to accomplish your goals, as I’ve said. I really like what Faithful posted as suggested responses from both sides of the argument that would start a productive dialog. I think she’s right on…
Comment by Neal — November 25, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
No, I believe that is the term used by “reparative therapy” groups such as NARTH, who do not have the endorsement of either the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association.
You might be more precisely described by a mainstream psychologist as a “celibate homosexual.” But of course, it is your prerogative to describe yourself in whatever terminology you choose. I just wanted to clarify the term you were using, since you claimed it was a proper psychological term with a particular meaning. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association (along with every other major professional organization in the field) agree that homosexuality is neither an illness nor a disorder, and probably would not use a term like “non-gay homosexual” in any clinical sense.
Comment by Lorian — November 25, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
TFD, #232 … suggests that gay rights advocates can build bridges by:
The only problem with this is that the Church doesn’t support civil unions any more than it supports gay marriage. It has been actively involved in promoting legislation that denies rights to gay couples, and has never (to my knowledge) actually supported any gay rights legislation.
The Church’s stance on gay rights can be summed up in a statement from Elder Wickman (of the Seventy) in “Same Gender Attraction” (a mock-interview article published on the Church’s website a couple of years ago):
He goes on to say that as far as he knows the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself on lesser bundles of rights, but that some particular rights–he gives adoption as an example–that would be traditionally associated with marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples, whether they are bundled with other rights in a “civil union” package or not.
Since that article was published the Church has expressed itself on the rights that they are willing to concede to gay couples: hospitalization and healthcare, housing and employment, and probate. Those have been listed multiple times as rights that the Church “does not object to”.
But we’re still a long way away from the Church endorsing or supporting anything like a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership, and I don’t think that it’s any more reasonable to expect the Church to change its position on that issue than it is to expect a change in doctrine regarding homosexuality. The fact of the matter is that the Church is opposed to anything that would make a gay union begin to resemble in any way a “legitimate” family. Full equality (even of the “separate but equal” type) is impossible to achieve within the lines that the Church has drawn.
I realize that you have recognized this conflict in a sense. You wrote:
But in this you’re contradicting your own suggestion that those advocating for gay rights can’t expect the Church to change its doctrine. I realize that the “no civil unions” stance is more a matter of policy than doctrine, but it’s a policy that is deeply rooted in the doctrine of the sanctity of marriage and of the family, and I don’t see the Church being any more willing to bend on this than it is on the definition of marriage itself.
Comment by Scott — November 25, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Thanks for reminding me, Neal.
I meant to address these points by FaithfulDissident earlier.
Perhaps you have missed it, but there has been a great deal of condemnation of these acts by groups leading movements to pressure for gay civil rights, such as Equality California. Such groups are actively urging protesters to demonstrate peacefully and to refrain from violence, vandalism and even from actions outside of churches. Every rally and march I have attended has been clearly directed by its organizers to keep the peace, refrain from engaging with hecklers or counter-protesters, and conduct ourselves in a manner that would give no cause for reproach.
In fact, one protest which took place within the week directly following the vote was originally set up to take place in front of an LDS church, and was MOVED at the last minute to avoid giving any impression of harrassing the LDS church.
What more do you want, FD?
I certainly don’t expect LDS theology to change. I thoroughly expect LDS churches to continue teaching that homosexuality is a sin, right along with fundamentalist and evangelical Christian groups. What I expect to have happen, though, is for such groups to continue teaching their religious beliefs in a religious context, denying gays marriage and other forms of participation within their churches (all of which are absolutely within the rights of any church), but to cease working as a corporate entity to deny CIVIL rights to citizens of this nation. I WILL have my civil rights protected eventually at all levels of government, both state and federal. Churches may teach what they please, but they should never put themselves in the position of trying to interfere with the CIVIL rights of citizens.
-Take the high road and fight for what you believe is your civil right in a civilized manner, instead of simply labelling everyone who doesn’t support gay marriage as “hateful” or “bigot,” or resorting to vandalism. (This can easily go for the YES side as well.)I agree that labels are generally not helpful to the process. I don’t think, however, that someone’s use of the label “bigot” to apply to those who would deny him his equal civil rights in society is a valid reason to continue denying those civil rights.
It is not necessary to like gays in order to agree that every citizen of this nation deserves equal protection of his or her civil rights. I attempt to be respectful of everyone with whom I engage in a discussion. I do not always receive the same respect in return. But I always attempt to remember that they are also a human being, a fellow citizen and equally loved by God.
Comment by Lorian — November 25, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Sorry, the second-to-the-last paragraph in the above post #258 was a quote from FaithfulDissident, and was intended to be enclosed in a block quote. I apologize for any confusion.
Comment by Lorian — November 25, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Lorian #231:
You have only re-stated in six paragraphs what I had previously stated in one paragraph. Of course you believe that the California constitution already granted the right to same-sex marriage.
I believe there was a gap in the constitution since same-sex marriage was never explicitly authorized by the constitution and never envisioned by the constitutional framers. To me, that is not so hard to understand.
If Loving v. Virginia is the rock-hard foundation for an argument for same-sex partners to be married, then shouldn’t the judge in that case have gone ahead and removed all the restrictions on SSM back in 1967 ? The judge only cleared the way for a man and a woman of different races to be married, and therefore, with respect to SSM, there would still be a *gap* in that state’s constitution.
And as far as re-writing the laws, I must assume that eventually Virginia got around to revising their laws and/or constitution to allow interracial marriage, as was intended by the judge. That is the process. I’m just saying that if there is existing language on a certain issue in the constitution that isn’t clear, then a judge has the right to provide an interpretation. Where an issue is not even addressed in the constitution, that is the place of the legislature and the democratic process. Not all judges do the “overreaching” thing. There are some judges that agree with me and practice restraint, so it’s not a case of “our system has always been this way”.
Comment by BrentW — November 26, 2008 @ 1:34 am
So, I just came back from seeing a pre-screening of the movie “Milk.” If you are not offended by R-rated movies, and you want to understand a little bit more about the history of the gay rights movement, it is a must see.
I have a lot that a would like to say right now, but more than anything I just want a hug. I cried multiple times during the movie, starting right at the very beginning.
Also Brent, SSM was not an issue back when Loving V. Virginia was ruled on. Stonewall hadn’t even happened.
Peace!
Nate
Comment by nategiggles — November 26, 2008 @ 1:57 am
“Non-gay homosexual” ?? Yikes.
Definitely not a clinical term. Celibate homosexual works, though. Nothing gay about that, agreed !
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 26, 2008 @ 2:15 am
#258 Lorian, what more do I want? Well, let me tell you.
I know that some prominent gay groups have condemned the vandalism, etc, from their side and I appreciate that. I am not ignoring it. What I would like to see is stronger condemnation from down in the ranks — not just from the leadership of these groups. And this goes for the Church’s side as well. I think that WE (whether that means the rank and file membership of the LDS Church or average gays and lesbians that oppose the Church) need to condemn the bad things that we see being committed by our “peers.” In my case, I’m a Mormon and I’ve seen many Mormons say things about the gay community that I think are out of line and that they should apologize for. I’ve spoken out against this, along with any violence or harassment that should come from the Mormon side, and I will continue to do so. I’m not afraid to say that it’s completely unacceptable. I hope that “average joe members” of the gay community would do the same. I think that both sides are probably about as equally guilty in “bigotry,” for lack of a better word.
“I agree that labels are generally not helpful to the process. I don’t think, however, that someone’s use of the label “bigot” to apply to those who would deny him his equal civil rights in society is a valid reason to continue denying those civil rights.”
I never said that it was. But when we resort to name-calling, the situation tends to become extremely inflammatory and we end up losing focus on what’s really at stake.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 26, 2008 @ 4:19 am
BrentW, as to Loving v. Virginia as a precedential case for Gay Marriage; at the time Loving v. Virginia was decided, making interracial marriages a constitutional right, there was no constitutional right for Gay men to have s-xual relationships. At all.
When Lawrence v. Texas was decided, giving constitutional protection for gay s-x, at this point now, the constitutional analysis changes, alot.
To find that a group is a suspect class, it must be immutable, historically subject to persecution, and traditionally lacking in political power to protect their rights and interest through the normal political process. Doesn’t seem like such a stretch, even under the US constitution.
You don’t have to believe me, this is what Supreme court Justice Scalia said in his angry dissent in “Lawrence v. Texas”.
[Emphasis added.]
Comment by djinn — November 26, 2008 @ 10:05 am
re: 263
But how can either side know what is going on “down the ranks”?? Average Joe Mormon and Average Joe Gay rarely interact day-to-day, except on occasion in the workplace. These are two communities that do not interact with each other.
I know plenty of gays who are horrified by some aspects of the post-election Pro-SSM protests. For example, my friends and I have personally reached out to support Margie Christofferson at El Coyote to express our support and condemn what has been done to her. Many of us have taken to eating there more often as well.
As one of those weird people who has a foot in both camps (well, mostly the well-decorated gay camp), I believe there is an inordinate amount of ignorance and stereotyping on both sides…but overall the gays’ assessment of the depth of Mormon homophobia (Bloggernacle notwithstanding) is not far off. It makes me sad to say that, but it’s how I see it.
How can there be bridge building and healing until this homophobia is reduced?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 26, 2008 @ 10:53 am
I guess I can only speak from the Mormon point of view, since I haven’t actually discussed Prop 8 with my non-Mormon gay friends — yet. I’ve been ducking the issue and I’m afraid to bring it up, yet at the same time I’m afraid to not bring it up. That was what I expressed in my post.
I’ve discussed Prop 8 at length with lots of Mormons and I seem to be able to break it down into a few categories. I’ve seen Mormons who:
a) Totally oppose what the Church has done and support gay marriage without hesitation. Most seem to understand the Church’s stance but don’t support it, either because of how it affects their gay loved ones, or because they think it is a violation of civil rights
b) Support the Church’s position for the most part, but totally understand and empathize with the arguments put forth by the gay community and hold no ill feelings towards gays. They would have voted YES, but not without feeling a bit sad about it. You could perhaps also lump fence sitters like me into this category, although I’m not sure that I would have voted YES. If I had, it would not have been something that I would have done cheerfully.
c) Agree with absolutely everything that the Church has ever said and done and are able to rationalize virtually anything that has ever been said or written by a General Authority, In other words, the Church an the Brethren are to them, essentially, infallible — even though they don’t like that word. Those who fall into this category are those who are most likely to demonstrate characteristics of homophobia or downplay what it’s like to be gay (i.e. not convinced that anyone is born that way, trivializing what it’s like to be celibate, that anyone can be celibate if they just exercise some willpower, etc.). They’re generally not interested in hearing about gays or attempting to understand what it’s like to be gay. Debating with them is like talking to the wall.
Category C is the one that I’m referring to, MikeInWeHo, which I think prevents us from building bridges. They are the Mormon equivalent of the gays who label all Mormons as bigots or fanatics, or who would hold up signs mocking our “magic underwear.” They have no idea what Mormonism is really about and they have no interest in attempting to understand it. It’s the extreme examples from either side that people remember and react to. So even though we’re not really directly interacting, I think we’re overreacting indirectly and that will get us nowhere.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 26, 2008 @ 11:21 am
So in order to make any progress with Category C Mormons, it’s going to have to come from the leadership itself. I’m not saying that they’ve done nothing. They have in recent years talked more openly about homosexuality not being a choice and they have made it known that you can be gay and still attend the temple worthily. However, I think they are going to have to work harder by making a much more aggressive plea to the members of the Church that no Mormon should be engaging in bigoted behaviour. How many of us have heard comments at Church from fellow members — or perhaps even bishops? — that are bigoted and homophobic? Most of us have and what usually happens? Nothing. So it just continues.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 26, 2008 @ 11:30 am
#266 “our “magic underwear.”
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident
So that we can understand; what is the magic underwear about anyway? What purpose does it serve? Why are you mandated to wear it? Are celibate gay mormons exempt from wearing it? Is it a deterient to sexual activity? We can’t understand unless someone on the inside explains it.
Comment by Ruby — November 26, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Faithful Dissident: I think there are at least four groups of Mormons. In my view, Group C are members of the Church who really strive to follow the letter of the Church’s teachings, without much questioning or debate. This means voting for and supporting Prop 8, but it also means trying to be kind and loving and respectful of gays and others who disagree. These people are very opposed to gay marriage, and are probably puzzled about how to reach out to gays, but I do not see them as bigots. I would say Group D are the members of the Church who believe that following directives like those regarding Prop 8 are more important, somehow, than following teachings about love and kindness and respect. This belief is likely motivated by prejudice and homophobia, but might also be a result of the fact that specific directives are just easier to implement than general teachings. Like all groups, we have our share of bigots. I really do think they are in a very small minority, however.
Comment by Martin Willey — November 26, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
What would you say is the percentage breakdown between groups A, B, and C, TFD? It must vary tremendously by location, doesn’t it? For example, you probably would find a lot of Cs in rural Idaho but few in Berkeley’s LDS community.
This raises an interesting question that I will try to put up later in the day when I am not so busy: What are the analogous categories in the gay community?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 26, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
I agree with Martin that group C ought to be split into two groups.
Comment by Stephanie — November 26, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
I have mostly stayed out of the prop 8 (or prop 102 equivalent) discussion on the internet. I had very conflicted feelings about it and still do. If I had to put myself in one of the above categories listed by TFD I would choose B, with A tendencies.
I was very interested Sunday in a discussion that happened in RS over this issue. Currently, our stake center has seen protests by members of the gay community every Sunday. They started small one Sunday with just two people protesting, and they’ve grown a bit each week - last week there were maybe 10 people.
I haven’t cared at all about the protests - my fear has been related to member reaction. I have been pleasantly surprised. Though most of the members of my stake are very conservative, reaction has been better than I thought it would be. I have mostly only heard the members talking about loving our neighbors (we live in an area of Phoenix with quite a large concentration of members of the gay community). I noticed in the discussion in RS many women - even those who I frankly expected less from - were able to speak positively about being loving and kind towards everyone.
Now of course there were many silent women in there as well and who knows what they were thinking and feeling. And I’ve received a few obnoxious email forwards that lead me to believe that there are still many many category ‘c’ members here in my stake as well.
It leads me to believe that if more of us (members of the church in general) had any gay friends, we would see this issue very differently.
I was pleased that one of the Bishops in our stake walked outside with bottles of water, passed them around to the protesters, and said something along the lines of “isn’t it great to live in a country where we can all express our freedom of speech?”. He was being sincere.
Comment by bandanamom — November 26, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
It is so odd. We see everyday the beautiful diversity of God’s creations. Even the cows and chickens have different personalities. We delight in the unique and different characters our kids and grandkids display. We’ve all worked with folks who are awesomely smart, and with others who are quite a few bricks short of a full load. We all know people who feel their spiritual needs, and others who simply don’t. And, we all make accommodations to that diversity and give thanks for the richness it brings to our world.
And yet, there are still some who think that unlike EVERYTHING ELSE in the world, human sexuality is something God made exactly the same in every man, and exactly the same in every woman.
I had a visitor a while back, who, after noting the Book of Mormon on the book shelf, launched into this amazing tirade against the LDS church. Yes, he knew I was, and still, a guest in my home! he ranted! Several minutes was all it took to realize he knew NOTHING about the history or teachings of the church, but by damn he thought he knew evil when he thought he saw it. An educated and normally reasonable man had put blinders on himself and then couldn’t even consider the possibility that his vision might be blurred by them.
Ah me…. God loves ‘em all.
Comment by Betty Jo — November 26, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
I agree that there is a need for Category D. Thanks for that, Martin. I certainly know Mormons who believe absolutely everything but are still kind, loving, caring people who can empathize with the struggles of homosexuals. So it would be inappropriate to just lump them into the same group of Mormons who are homophobic or bigots.
MikeInWeHo asked: “What would you say is the percentage breakdown between groups A, B, and C, TFD? It must vary tremendously by location, doesn’t it? For example, you probably would find a lot of Cs in rural Idaho but few in Berkeley’s LDS community.”
Good question. I have no idea of percentages and since I don’t attend church in the US, I guess I’m not the best judge. I think that it’s certainly less of an issue here in Europe than it is in the US. That is not to say that European Mormons are more supportive of gay marriage than American Mormons, it’s just less of a hot button issue here and it’s not really on the radar. No one had ever mentioned anything about Prop 8 in my branch until this past Sunday, but it was a pretty general comment about the importance of marriage and not really controversial. We’ve never really discussed gay marriage at church, even though it’s already been legalized in Norway, but my guess is that my fellow branch members would be against it. Most of the members are older (60+) and seem pretty conservative. Maybe not Utah conservative, but Scandinavian conservative. Just to put it into perspective.
The Mormons that I have talked to and have gotten to know best, who opposed Prop 8, actually seem to be mostly in California. It could be just a coincidence, I’m not sure. I’m guessing that it’s a lot harder to be pro gay marriage in a Utah ward than a ward on the east coast. I know that my CA friends who opposed it felt awkward in their wards. I assume it would raise a few more eyebrows in Mormon country, but I’ll have to leave it to those who actually live there to elaborate.
Bandanamom, I can somewhat identify with Category A as well. I’m still not sure whether this really is a matter of civil rights. I simply don’t know who to believe. If it is, then I don’t think I could support Prop 8. I would perhaps continue to not be an outright supporter of gay marriage, but denying someone their civil rights is a serious thing. As Mormons, we’re supposed to uphold the laws of the land.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 26, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
re: 273
I can report happily that it is not terribly difficult to oppose legal bans on homosexual marriage in at least some Salt Lake City wards!
Comment by Derek — November 26, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
I’m really glad to hear that, Derek.
Comment by Kimberly — November 26, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
[…] do these comments, posted on a Mormon blog: “I’m puzzled that you (and others) interpret the first presidency statement as giving […]
Pingback by Mind Control & Mormonism | Stop The Mormons — November 26, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
Not Ophelia, that was a great comment. Thanks so much.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 26, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
No, Brent, that is not the process. The state of Virginia did not have to write a law saying that “marriage between people of different races is now permissable.” The simple act of declaring that it was not constitutional to draw distinctions between people of different races in laws governing marriage was sufficient to allow interracial marriage going forward. There was no need to write a new law to say that “black people can now marry white people.” (And, how utterly insulting that would be if someone believed such a thing was necessary!)
The same is true for gay marriage. The constitution of CA did not specifically allow for same-gender marriage. Nor did it specifically allow for opposite-gender marriage. It allowed for marriage between two people, period. In overturning Prop 22, the justices ruled that, because the constitution did not specify the gender of the two people marrying, gays were equally eligible. Therefore it was unnecessary to make a law stating this fact.
You seem to be intentionally missing this point. Virginia didn’t have to write a law to make interracial marriages permissible. They were always constitutional, but were unconstitutionally banned by Virginia’s antimiscegenation laws.
The reason gay marriage was not immediately legalized by Loving v. Virginia is because no one had considered at that point in history that gay people should have the right to marry, just as no one in Virginia had considered three hundred years or so ago that black people should have the right to marry whites. Blacks were slaves and whites were free, and blacks, considered subhuman by the white slave-state, didn’t have the right to marry ANYONE, let alone a white person.
History and the passage of time change our perspective. When it at last became clear to fair-thinking people that people of different races SHOULD have the right to marry one another if they pleased, then the court examined laws forbidding such marriages and found that, in fact, they did not meet constitutional criteria providing for fairness and justice and equal civil rights protections for all citizens.
Now, in the 21st century, perspective has again begun to change and many fair-thinking people have realized that gay people also should have the right to marry. As there is nothing in the constitution to forbid this, and as the constitution itself guarantees equal civil rights and protections for all citizens, the courts are beginning to recognize this right of gay citizens.
Eventually even state-level constitutional bans against gays being allowed to marry will be overturned. There will be justice. There will be equal civil rights protections for families like mine.
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
FD-263, As I said, I don’t think labels are generally helpful, though they are quite understandable when someone has gone out of their way to help strip you of your basic civil rights.
As to your desire for the “rank and file” glbt people to condemn acts of vandalism, what makes you think they do not? Unless you have personally spoken with a broad range of gay and lesbian people and they have refused to comdemn acts of vandalism, I’m not sure how fair it is to consider them in some way complicit or hold them at all responsible.
I don’t hold individual Mormons responsible for what was done to my family and our civil rights unless I know that they actually took part in the campaign and/or voted in favor of Prop 8. And there are a great many more Mormons who did these things than there are glbt people who participated in acts of violence or vandalism. And the act of having our civil rights stripped from us is a great deal more harmful and hurtful to us on a personal level than an act of property vandalism is to the average LDS person. Sure it’s going to insult, hurt and anger you if someone attacks one of your churches or temples. No doubt. But does it actually deprive you or your children of something as personal, as basic, and as important to your family’s safety as your civil rights protections?
So, rather than trying to figure out who has suffered the most harm as a consequence of this Prop 8 thing, or worrying too much about “who started it,” perhaps you can let go of some of your personal affront and recognize that there are probably AT LEAST as many, if not more, glbt people who HAVE NOT engaged in acts of vandalism against LDS churches as there are LDS folks who have taken part in stripping glbt families and their children of civil rights. And then maybe you will be able to stop agitating for lgbt people to meet some nebulous standard of having denounced the bad behavior of a few “enough” for you to feel okay about us all.
Most of us didn’t do it, and are not in any way shape or form responsible for it. I think it’s reprehensible, but that makes me no more or less responsible for it than my gay friend who may not even have heard about it or commented on it in any public forum.
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
FaithfulDissident, let me inquire a bit about your Group A,B,C,D system.
Of these three groups, only group A would refuse to take an active role in stripping my family, my children, of civil rights protections. Groups B & C are certainly less hostile than Group D. If I had to dispense labels, I’d pretty firmly put Group D in the “bigot” category. The B & C folks certainly mean well, with the B people pretty much considering me an equal, and the C people considering me a sinner because of my sexual orientation (not denying we all sin, but I’m referring specifically to their consdemnation of me as a homosexual person).
However, when you remove all their alphabetical placards, hand them each a ballot and send them to a voting booth, the fact remains that a huge group of them all walk to the ballot box and drop in a chit which strips me of my civil rights. Only the Group A people refuse to perpetrate this harm, this grave injustice, upon my children.
So — a woman is being stoned. Four people come to join the crowd. The first one reads Jesus’ writing on the ground, but picks up a stone anyway and throws it, because he is sure the woman is guiltier than he is, and he wants to see her punished. The second reads Jesus’ writing, thinks for a minute, then bends down, picks up a stone and throws it, because he is sure the woman must be guilty, and someone told him this is what we do to guilty people. The third person comes, reads Jesus’ writing, bends, grabs a stone and throws it half-heartedly, weeping because he is fairly sure the woman is no more guilty than he is, but he’s afraid if he doesn’t throw a stone others will condemn him for not participating according to their expectations. His stone, like the first three, nails the woman right between the eyes, even though he only chucked it half-in-earnest.
Person # 4 comes, reads Jesus’ writing on the ground, realizes that the poor woman is no more guilty than anyone else and doesn’t deserve his condemnation. He bends down to try to help her, but finds that the stones thrown by the other three did their job and the woman is dead.
Does it really matter why the first three people threw a rock at this woman’s head? Is she any less dead because of it? Who deserves the most blame for what was done to her? Do you think the woman noticed a big distinction between the first three people? Can you blame her if she did not?
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
We received an e-mail from an extended family member, sharing an article written by someone giving their take on the post-Prop 8 tension. It had some good points, but the underpinning theme was that all gay marriage advocates were haters and that they were engaged in evil. (It was not written by a Mormon, but the person who forwarded it to us is.)
I wrote a response to everyone who had received it, but the most interesting thing to me was my wife’s response. She said essentially what I had said - that the author was being exactly what he was saying others were. She called him a hypocrite and asked the extended family to not support him and what he had written. My wife is not confrontational by nature, so I was pleased that she felt strongly enough about this to write her response - when she usually just shakes her head and doesn’t respond.
Comment by Ray — November 26, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Yes, yes yes! Lorian, I’m glad you’re here and I appreciate your comments. What strikes me, like an anvil, is the inappropriateness of Lorian, a woman who’s rights were stripped by this law that the church helped pass, being encouraged to believe that the people who actively voted against her marriage need to be placated, or better understood. I am of two minds: one, I see the need to win hearts and minds, make bridges with reasonable people so we can pass better laws and two: why the @#$%^&*(*&^ are we trying to tease out what kind of bigot you are? Why do we care? Why is it the problem of the victim of injustice to reach out and HELP and beg and cajole and seek to better understand her oppressor?! Doesn’t that seem a little Crazy?
I keep trying. I am reading, I am thinking. I haven’t been walking this past week and I clearly need to kick that back into the mix. I want to open my heart up and approach without rancor, heal divides but I am still so ever lovin conflicted and damaged over this. I’m working on it.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 26, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
I think there are many members who would not cast a stone, who would try to stop others from casting a stone, who would stand in front of someone being stoned - but who also would not argue that the actions of the person being stoned should be given equal standing in society. Your claim that anyone who didn’t actively oppose and vote against Prop 8 is culpable in the killing of another is close to calling Jesus a bigoted hater, since he followed his initial saving of the woman taken in adultery with an admonition to “go and sin no more”. The most that can be said is that he stopped people from killing someone - but he still labeled her action as sin. As important as his action was, he did not condone her sexual practices. (I am NOT equating homosexuality with prostitution. Don’t go there, please.)
Think about how you would respond if someone said to you, “You can be married as a homosexual to another homosexual - just “go and sin no more”. You wouldn’t see that as a legitimate marriage - any more than you apparently see civil unions with equal civil rights as a legitimate marriage.
Lorian, I truly do respect you and your passion regarding this issue, but to equate those who would do anything to help homosexuals (individually or collectively) except call civil unions “marriage” with those who sanction killing the woman taken in adultery is a gargantuan stretch in my mind. I simply don’t see your assumption in the actual account of Jesus’ purported words.
Just to be clear, this is not a primary argument I would make against gay marriage. I share it simply because I think your stoning analogy is deeply flawed - and actually contradicted in the account of the woman taken in adultery.
Comment by Ray — November 26, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
Crazywomancreek, thanks for that.
I am more than willing to reach out, to understand others’ POV, and even to do a bit of cajoling :chuckle: I’ve done LOTS of that over the past several years, with people a great deal more hostile towards me and my family than are most of you on this blog.
But I want it clearly understood that I am no more responsible for the bad actions of other gay people than are any of you for the bad actions of any given LDS person. I am grateful that you, CWC, and many others of you here understand that fact. We DO need to work together, and that starts with respect in both directions.
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
One more point:
I think either side loses the argument the minute they try to frame that argument in the terms of the other side.
Iow, religion lost the basic argument over homosexuality the instant it tried to claim that homosexuality is “unnatural” (a scientific argument), and the gay community loses the argument whenever they cite the teachings of Jesus (a religious argument). If each side wants to put forth a strong argument, I believe they need to stick to their own arena - religious for the religions and political/scientific for the gay community.
If anyone cares, my advice is to keep pounding political equality for all consensual sex; just be willing to extend that to its natural conclusion - the inclusion of polygamy and its various possible iterations of multiple sexual partners as legal marriage. Leave the religious arguments alone; focus on purely scientific and political justifications.
Comment by Ray — November 26, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
AMEN. If we grant each other only that initially, it will be a good start.
Comment by Ray — November 26, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
Okay, Ray. I KNEW that borrowing that metaphor was going to end up being misunderstood by some.
1. I recognize that in the Biblical story of the woman caught in adultery, she actually was guilty of adultery, and Jesus asked the crowd to spare her life because they were at least as sinful as she. I am not extending the crime of which she was guilty as part of my metaphor. I do not consider being gay a “sin” any more than I consider being left-handed a sin.
2. Another way in which I am not carrying over the entirety of this story into my metaphor is in drawing a direct comparison between the actual murder of a human being and depriving someone of their civil rights. Clearly the two crimes are of distinctly different degrees.
My point was to use a familiar story but to apply it to a different set of circumstances as a metaphor.
Since it is apparently not possible to do this and have everyone see past the original context of the story, let’s try a different metaphor with no confusing alternate context:
A man is walking down the street. He accidentally drops a handful of $100 bills. Four other men see this happen. One runs quickly to snatch a bill, pocket it and jump on a bus to get away before anyone notices his theft. The second picks up one of the bills, looks after the man who dropped it, decides the man was too careless and probably deserves the loss of his money. He pockets the bill and walks away. The third man picks up a bill, starts to run after the man, but realizes he’ll be late for work if he does, gives up the chase, pockets the bill and goes on about his business. He feels a little guilty, but spends the bill on a fancy dinner with his wife anyway.
The fourth man picks up the remaining $100. He sees that the man who lost it has disappeared into the distance. He knows he can’t catch up with him, but also knows that he cannot in good conscience keep the money. He takes it to the local police station and asks that they keep it in case the man who lost it later comes and inquires.
See my point now?
As to what Jesus would do, I doubt it would be something which would deprive children of equal rights and protections.
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
Um, Ray? Why am I not entitled to use the teachings of Jesus to represent my point? Why do you consider Jesus’ teachings your sole property? Do you believe that I am not a Christian?
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
One more thing, Ray: What leads you to believe that I would not accept a civil union which grants me and my family equal civil rights at the state and federal level? I believe I’ve already stated that this would make me more than ecstatic. If I haven’t stated this, let me jump right in and correct that omission.
However, I would say that if you truly support equal civil rights for gays and lesbians and only wish to withhold the word “marriage,” the only real means of accomplishing this goal is to have everyone, gay or straight have their marriage “reduced” to a “civil union,” and have marriage be a strictly religious sacrament or blessing to which no civil rights are attached, whatsoever, and which is granted at the sole discretion of religious groups or churches.
In which case, we will all have equal civil rights, and I will still be able to marry my spouse anyway, in any one of the many churches which are already willing to grant sacramental blessings of marriage to gays, though not in a Mormon church, which is okay by me.
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
#289 - Good heavens, I never said that. I simply said that arguing gay marriage based on the Bible is going to be a losing argument, since it won’t convince anyone who parses what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible ain’t friendly to gay marriage, and attempts to imply otherwise are simply weak arguments, imo. As a Mormon, ironically, I can grant you the right to liken the scriptures unto yourself and claim that the Bible is only relevant “as far as it is translated correctly”; the vast majority of Christianity can’t do that - and Mormons are only a tiny fraction of the religious in this country.
I simply think the strongest arguments for gay marriage are not religious ones. I think they are political ones. I think anyone trying to make an argument should stick to their strongest arguments - or risk sounding like those who advance the stupid “every child deserves to be raised by a mother and father” argument to argue for Prop 8.
Comment by Ray — November 26, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
#290 - That solution is exactly what I have supported publicly on multiple blogs. It’s good to see we agree with each in the end.
Comment by Ray — November 26, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
Ray, I’m glad that we agree that all citizens deserve equal civil rights protections, regardless of sexual orientation, and that you are willing to give up the label of “marriage” for your civil partnership, if necessary, in order to see this happen.
As to your post # 291, you might well be surprised to learn that MANY Christians, both individually and by the teachings of their denominations, believe that the Bible is only as good as its translation. You may be aware that the 8 or so passages in the Bible which directly address same-gender sexual behavior have traditionally been grossly misinterpreted over the centuries by the thousands of translators and copyists who have brought them to us in their present format.
When they are studied in their original languages, in the earliest manuscripts available, and within the cultural and linguistic context in which they were written, we find that they refer to things like temple prostitution, sexual slavery, commiting adultery in one’s wife’s bed, pagan temple orgies, idolatry, and the rape of strangers as an expression of dominance. All of these are clearly very bad things.
What did Jesus say about homosexuality? Nothing.
So, yes, contrary to what Neal said in an earlier post, I feel quite comfortable discussing gay rights as holding not only the political and ethical, but also the moral, high ground. I have no doubts on this matter, in spite of the teachings of more fundamentalist, evangelical or conservative religious groups.
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
Lorian, I understand all of that. I simply think arguing homosexuality based on the Bible is a weak argument - both because those who don’t understand all that aren’t going to accept it and because arguing for something from a base foundation of nothing always is a weak argument. “Jesus said nothing about it, therefore it must be ok,” just isn’t a solid logical argument - and I think there are very solid political arguments.
However, since we have found that we ultimately agree on the solution, I’m not concerned that we disagree on this particular point.
Comment by Ray — November 26, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
Ray, I tend to agree that arguing for a civil right on religious grounds is not my preferred method. However, when it comes to discussions with folks who claim that gay is a sin because the Bible says so, there is a great deal to be said on the opposing side. And I will never acquiesce to the claim that gays “lack the moral high ground” or should avoid religious discussions out of shame or out of lack of evidence to support our claim of the righteousness of our cause.
I AM glad we are on the same page from a political perspective, Ray. Just don’t make assumptions about my religion or spirituality!
I do enjoy the discussion, though. 
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
I never said that.
I never have.
PS. This is why I am a passionate parser.
Comment by Ray — November 26, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
No, you didn’t. Those claims came from Neal.
You said:
and
which seem to imply that religion, Christianity in particular, cannot and does not fall on the side of gay civil rights. I disagree with this conclusion.
You also said this:
which at the very least implies to me that you consider religious arguments to belong solely to the anti-gay “side,” and that gays fall squarely in the “non-religious camp” rather than existing quite comfortably in both “camps.”
You may not have meant these statements as they came across to me, but they appear to be saying that there is a “gay” side and there is a “religious” side, and it is impossible to be both gay and religious. The anti-gay marriage side does not “own” Jesus, the Bible, nor the scriptural side of the discussion.
(I like to parse, too. And fisk. I try to avoid too much fisking, though, because my posts tend to be plenty long as it is!
)
Comment by Lorian — November 26, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
Lorian, it’s interesting that you should say “perhaps you can let go of some of your personal affront,” when some of the Mormon side will tell me basically the same thing in regards to my negative feelings about certain teachings and policies.
I’ve tried to be as fair and open-minded to both sides of this issue and I would say that in a way, I’ve been even more sympathetic to the NO side than the YES. So I don’t really appreciate being accused of “agitating for lgbt people to meet some nebulous standard of having denounced the bad behavior of a few “enough” for you to feel okay about us all.” Obviously I’m not doing it well enough for you. The same can be said of the Mormons who have criticized me — those “LDS folks who have taken part in stripping glbt families and their children of civil rights,” as you so “fairly” summed it up.
I find myself in an impossible situation. I will never satisfy either side and so I remain unapologetic for my stance because it’s the only one that gives me some sort of peace in the matter.
I gave it my best. Now it’s Not Ophelia’s turn to give it a go.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 27, 2008 @ 5:35 am
Guys, it’s a generational thing; as anti-miscegnation laws were overturned, so will (implied) anti-same sex marriage laws. However, the timeframe is in doubt. Lawrence v. Texas, as has been noted, for the first time, gave sex between two consenting adults constitutional status. This fact alone, combined with the 14th amendment gives gays the right to marry. The only thing in question is when it will happen. I ran a quick statistical analysis on when one of the four supreme court justices who vote not for, uh, the constitution, but rather — Activists all, in the true meaning of the word — their personal religious beliefs (Catholic, for those of you who don’t follow such things) and determined, on average (only five values) that it will be 16 years before one of them passes away–the new justice might have a different outlook. At that moment, we’ve got gay marriage.
Or–the swing vote in the Supreme Court, and, these days, the only vote that counts, Kennedy, (four consistently “liberal” votes, four consistently “conservative” votes) not only was in the majority on Lawrence v. Texas (gay sex hunky dory), but wrote the opinion. I think, like Loving v. Virginia, Gay marriage may be declared a constitutional right when the Supreme court gets a chance to decide.
So, buck up, buckaroos.
Comment by djinn — November 27, 2008 @ 6:15 am
BrentW at 68, I somehow missed your comment earlier. Children live in many sorts of families. All, truthfully, that the anti-8 people can say is that fact has been acknowledged in MA. Do you really believe that your children should not be told that kids sometimes live in familes with two fathers or two mothers? So, if a child in such a situation happens to be in a classroom with your child, what then? You act like a (Insert bad word here) towards both the child and the parents? You support, implicitly, the violence and bullying that the lessons on diversity are meant to counter? Or, you just tie some random gay person to a fence in Wyoming to make your point?
Comment by djinn — November 27, 2008 @ 6:23 am
FD- You seem to be asking two things- one, to hold the middle way, claim common ground with both sides of the prop-8 debate and two, you want people to respect your decision.
That’s where we have a problem. I *get* your choice, it makes sense to me, I *appreciate* how genuinly thoughtful you have been in articulating that choice but at the end of the day, you would vote against gay marriage and I.just.don’t.respect.that. That is not a respectable position to have, in my opinion.
So, where does that leave us? You are clearly one of the reasonable people that if I am serious about reaching out to opposition, you should be my first candidate, and yet…what does that mean interms of a dialogue we could have?
fd: I want respect for my position, it is sincere and thoughtful.
cwc: ya can’t have my respect cuz thoughtful as it may be, it still stinks.
fd…..
cwc…..
and djinn, you know I love and adore you but please remove that last sentance- it is making my eyeballs bleed.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 27, 2008 @ 9:04 am
CWC, I didn’t say that I would vote against gay marriage. I said that I may have voted against, but I am still very undecided about a lot of things. I may have voted for it. I simply don’t know.
Nice to know, though, that I don’t have your respect since my position “stinks.”
For what it’s worth, I still respect yours.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 27, 2008 @ 9:42 am
As I was switching loads of laundry this morning I thought, maybe I should have said, I’d still share a cup of tea with you, have your family over for dinner and go on long walks with you if we were ever to meet. I’d do that thinking your position stinks, but I think a lot of things stink. I think it stinks that my mom say’s, “it must have been God’s will” when Obama won the election in the Exact same voice you use to explain why some babies die. I love her, I respect a ton of things about her but nothing is going to change that I think that view … stinks.
So I should have written more carefully this morning and sorry you got to it before my amendment. I don’t think YOU stink- I think your view - which I may have overstated- stinks.
And that is the part I DO think you are eliding. Can I respect you and NOT your view? Yes. Do I think it is asking too much to want to hold out the possibility of criminalizing anothers marriage and still have your view respected? Yes.
And I KNOW we’re supposed to be finding common ground now and working on this but for whatever reason I just feel compelled to clarify this. I don’t Think I’m working against progress, but maybe I am.
Comment by crazywomancreek — November 27, 2008 @ 10:07 am
“Can I respect you and NOT your view? Yes.”
I agree completely.
“Do I think it is asking too much to want to hold out the possibility of criminalizing anothers marriage and still have your view respected? Yes.”
Here’s where we differ. If someone is “criminalizing” another’s marriage, as you put it, out of sheer spite and hatred, then I would agree with you. I wouldn’t have much respect for that. However, if someone still objects to such a marriage on religious grounds — as ignorant as it may seem to many — and not out of hate, then I think that it should be respected. Not only that, mutual respect is imperative in order to bridge a gap between two sides.
That being said, I also think that a lot of things in this world “stink,” so I agree with you on that one. What it all boils down to for me is the motivation behind people’s actions. Are they doing certain things or voting a certain way because they hate others and want to keep them down, or are they doing it because they are listening to their conscience — whether we agree with it or not? When people do things out of spite and hatred, I don’t respect that. But I can still respect views that I disagree with immensely simply because I can see where that person is coming from. I may still fight that person’s view tooth and nail, but it doesn’t have to change how I feel about them as a person or their motivations.
Obama has been one to talk a lot about the importance of dialogue and diplomacy. It’s what I like best about him and he’s taken a lot of heat from those who think it’s a bad idea. I don’t think that there should ever be a complete, lengthy breakdown in dialogue, whether it’s between the US and Iran, or Mormons and homosexuals. We may require some pre-conditions (no name-calling, violence, etc.), Such minimum requirements don’t necessarily require us to relinquish our beliefs, but they should require a minimum degree of respect and tolerance. That’s the only way human beings can keep the peace in any conflict. I’m personally disappointed that the LDS Church took so many years to ever meet with Affirmation and when they finally did, the First Presidency didn’t even attend. I think it showed poor “diplomacy,” if you can call it that. I hope that us “average Joe and Jane Mormons” will take it upon themselves to reasonably reach out to the other side, even if we cannot change our stance after personal contemplation. At the very least, we should be gaining more understanding and compassion for the other side.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 27, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Sometimes, though, I think it’s even possible to NOT respect a person’s views even while understand their non-hatred motivation for those views. Take my old neighbour in Canada, for example. I respect him in a lot of ways. He and his wife are, in many ways, great neighbours, but they are racists. They’re not bad people, but I think their views of certain people are very bad. However, I don’t think it’s because they truly hate people of different races, otherwise they most certainly would not have had anything to do with my multiracial family. It’s plain and simple ignorance. They’re in their 80’s and they’ve always avoided other races and have never tried to understand them. I certainly wish they would change because I HATE racism. But seeing how their racist views are motivated by pure and simple ignorance, I can’t bring myself to hate them or even want to sever all contact with them. Strangely enough, I appreciate their good qualities.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 27, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Hey FD,
I just wanted to correct your statement about the LDS Church leadership meeting with Affirmation. That meeting hasn’t taken place yet because the leader that was supposed to meet with them left the position as Director of Family Services or something like that. They want to replace him before a meeting takes place. The meeting was supposed to occur in August when Affirmation was having a conference here in Salt Lake City and much of their leadership would be here.
Peace!
Nate
Comment by nategiggles — November 27, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Thanks for the correction, Nate. I thought that it had already taken place in August with a representative from LDS Family Services. I’m almost glad to hear that it hasn’t taken place yet because I think it’s needed even more now than back in August. They certainly have a lot to talk about! Hopefully they won’t wait too long.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — November 27, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
FD, I get what you’re saying, and I understand the distinction you are making between those who discriminate out of actual hatred and those who discriminate because they have been taught since childhood that such discrimination is “right” or “just” or “God’s law.” I understand your compassion for such people and the fact that you want to reach out to them, rather than simply writing them off as “bigots,” however bigoted their behavior may be.
Where I have a problem (and you notice, I claim the problem — I’m not necessarily saying that it is YOUR problem) is that your view of this is from the outside in. And you seem to have an expectation that someone looking from the inside out should share your perspective and be as understanding and unangered by the behavior of the folks who are approaching this from the standpoint of inculcated beliefs as you are understanding of them (sorry for the mental morse code).
This might be easier to see if we, again, step away from the gay marriage issue and look at it in re a civil rights issue of the past, the outcome of which we can all pretty much agree on. So let’s think of slavery. There were those who opposed emancipation because they truly hated blacks, did not consider them human and did not want them freed. There were those who opposed emancipation because, while they knew many black people whom they loved (family slaves, etc.), and they may have even considered them human beings, they did not consider them as having the innate capability of living as free men and women. They also depended upon the institution of slavery for their livelihood, and had been taught since birth that God approved of slavery, and that this was just the way things were supposed to be. Some were even taught that blacks were born unequal because they were being punished for sins of their pre-birth past.
Certainly, there is quite a bit of difference between the two positions. But do we really expect a black slave, oppressed and kept in bondage, to be “understanding” or “compassionate” or “appreciative” of his oppressor who justifies that oppression based upon his religious beliefs, his upbringing, or his economic concerns? Really? We expect the black slave to thank the second person for his kinder view of the slave, even though he is every bit as determined to keep the slave in bondage and continue to deprive the slave of his human rights?
So, my point is this: I understand that there are those who wish to prevent my children from having the protections of equal civil rights because they hate gays. I also understand that there are those who wish to prevent my children from having the protections of equal civil rights because they consider my partner and me unequal to them for religious reasons or because of aspects of their upbringing. But do you honestly expect me to be less exasperated with their continued activisim to prevent my children from being equally protected under the law? Yeah, I can forgive them. I can forgive the haters, too. In fact, I work very hard at doing so. But that doesn’t mean that I must consider them to be “more tolerant” or “less hurtful” to my family, or “less wrong” in their position towards my family. They are equally as hurtful to my family as those who oppose our equal civil rights on pure hatred alone.
Comment by Lorian — November 27, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
I’ve been having a hard time with this issue lately, but I think there might be a middle ground, somewhat. Lorian, I love your commentary and think that I would probably use the same arguments. However, I’m wondering if it might be more productive to foster a dialogue with FD about how she can help move those people from groups C and D in the church to group B where she is.
I understand how frustrating this issue is for both sides and I believe that if the rank and file members of the church started asking the church to live up to the statements it has made regarding the situation in California, we could see some progress in some of the other places where the church leaders have some sway. We need to be asking those people that have come as far as they can that are willing to speak up for civil rights for gay people to a certain extent to support us and talk to others about it. I think that those people that are willing to discuss it with others might come to understand the situation more.
As yesterday was Thanksgiving, I think it is only appropriate that we thank each other for at least being willing to discuss it online. The more we can foster feelings of love and acceptance among all of us, the better a place the world may become.
Sorry if that was too sappy for anyone.
Peace and Happy Thanksgiving!
Nate
Comment by nategiggles — November 28, 2008 @ 2:15 am
Thanks for this post.
I’m in group A all the way. Just this Sunday, DH and I were talking about how glad we are that we don’t live in CA and didn’t have to rebuff calls for donations and canvassing. Here in Delaware, the subject does not come up unless someone mentions how glad they are that it hasn’t come up.
Comment by E.D. — December 1, 2008 @ 8:09 am
RE: #114 Again your making statements without proof, what did’nt you understand about, ” I recently got off the phone with an L.A. Times reporter friend of mine and he told me what really went on. So here are the facts 1. THE CHURCH DID NOT GIVE ANY MONIES TO YES ON PROP 8. Call the L.A. Times and ask for the reporter who did the piece (I will not give the name here due to privacy for the person….. Phone: (213) 237-5000. I DO NOT “BELIEVE” I know! Oh and please refer it as the LDS church or Church of JESUS CHRIST of latter-day saints….not “Mormon church” out of respect for them. thanx.
With regards to # 122 “morons” statement, I was refering to Bishoprics or Stake Pres. who would give monies from their local wards and stakes, for they would be morons for doing this because of their tax exempt status. And it would put the church in difficulties as you can see by the misinformed people who write on blogs and this thread without facts, not heresay as so many people here do. Sorry about not making myself clear, oops!
Oh and one final thought, for those who like to quote weird stuff that comes out of the mouths of leaders of the church from time to time, research and see if they were saying them as doctrine in conferences or just a statement somewhere else, usually it’s somewhere else and it’s not from the Lord, it’s from themselves and they are human and make many mistakes but like Joseph Smith said when asked about his being a prophet ” I am but a Prophet a little of the time of certain days but most of the time I am but a man, with weaknesses and mistakes as any other ” So even he says he messes up and he’s only a prophet a little of his time. So you see they can all say dumb junk, they are not infallible, only Heavenly Father and his SON ARE! The Prophets and Apostles are not perfect and never said they were. okie dokie!
Comment by meee — December 4, 2008 @ 6:32 am
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I don’t divorce my personal beliefs from my political beliefs. If God says homosexual acts are wrong, they are wrong for everyone.
There are so few commandments that God gives that are actually punishable in this life time. You’d only face disciplinary action for something serious like abuse, infidelity, and so forth. These shouldn’t be just religious beliefs, but built into our political system. And they will be some day. As LDSaints, we believe in Christ returning to reign on Earth religiously and politically. If you think traditional marriage laws like Prop 8 are fleeting, you haven’t considered the long run.
This doesn’t mean homosexuals are bad people. They should be accepted like everyone else. Homosexual acts are wrong. A predisposition to a certain sin doesn’t make that sin legitimate. You can’t help a person by encouraging sinful behavior, because either in this life or in the next, it will catch up with them.
In the end, it is better to side with God than side with man.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 11:15 am
Jon, comments like yours scare me. Because if attitudes such as yours — that the religious beliefs of the majority should become the law of the land — ever become status quo in this country, then we are headed for the very same problems as countries like England are now facing, in which Sharia Law is beginning to supplant British Law.
Let me clarify that I have no particular argument with Muslims believing and living as they choose — within the boundaries and strictures of our existing legal system. Each person is entitled to their own religious beliefs and to the practice of those religious beliefs, insofar as their practice of their religious beliefs does not deprive others of human or civil rights.
So, the problem I see here is that in England, in many areas, Islam has become a major, and even in some cases, dominant religion. In such areas, Muslims are beginning to impose their will upon the British courts and demand that, rather than enforcing British Law, the courts impose Muslim Sharia Law — so that women are not given the same rights and protections as men, and Islamic restrictions are imposed, even if no violation of British Law has occurred.
The reason this is possible is because Great Britain has not traditionally upheld the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. They have a State Religion - The Church of England, and they have historically permitted laws to be passed and court decisions to be made on the basis of religious beliefs rather than strictly upon what things interfere with the rights of citizens, and what things cause demonstrable harm.
Other countries where Muslims have become a significant religiious force are also facing similar problems.
The United States, however, should not have difficulties in this area because it has been one of our nation’s founding principals from the beginning that we do not allow the religious beliefs of any particular religion to be written into our laws, unless there is also a compelling secular reason for doing so (i.e., we have outlawed murder, not because the Bible says it is wrong, but because it deprives an individual of a basic human right, the right to not have one’s life taken away without just cause and due process of law).
But if we change our rules, discard the separation of Church and State, and allow laws to be written just because the dominant religion declares something to be a sin, then the risk we take is that someday, our religion may no longer be the dominant religion, and we may find someone else making laws according to their own religious beliefs, which laws we may find to be in conflict with our own moral codes. Would you like to be subject to Sharia Law? It won’t happen in the next few years, but if we begin allowing laws to be made strictly because your religion or my religion thinks they are proper, then give it a few decades and we may well find ourselves obeying laws which deprive women of basic rights and freedoms, and impose penalties we never dreamed were possible in this country.
There are good reasons for the Separation of Church and State, and because we are so far away in time from our original Pilgrim forefathers and foremothers, many of us don’t clearly identify with and understand the fear which drove them to leave their homes in countries where the religion of the majority was forced upon the minority, in order to found a nation where religion was a matter of private belief and practice, not something which could be forced upon one by the government.
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Jon: Homosexual acts are wrong.
If they are “wrong”, shouldn’t they be made criminal, then? Should we jail people, or impose fines, for committing homosexual acts?
Why, or why not?
Comment by Mark N. — December 4, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
re: 313
Very slippery slope, Jon. By that same logic (that we don’t divorce personal beliefs from political law), since a great many people believe that joining the LDS church puts one on the path to Hell, they have the right to ban temple marriages, or even the LDS Church proper.
Comment by Derek — December 4, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
#314
Yes. I consider it to be comparable to other non-abusive sexual misconduct crimes, like adultery (which is illegal in about half of the states). Utah lists adultery as a class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 6 months in prison and a $1,000 fine.
You could argue that unlike adultery, every party involved approves of the action. But this still affects me. Homosexuality is no longer a private issue; there’s now pressure to teach it, demonstrate it, and glorify it. As long as I’m part of a community, I’ll fight to keep homosexuality out of it.
I don’t propose peeping through windows or witch hunts. I do propose removing it from society.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
314 - Good point, Mark.
We have decriminalized homosexuality. It is perfectly legal for gays to pair off, establish homes, and bear and raise children.
But we will draw the line at allowing them to protect those children with the benefits of marriage.
How, exactly, does that make sense? And how, exactly, is it an expression of “Biblical Principles?” Instead of punishing homosexuals for doing homosexual stuff, we punish their children?
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Then, Jon, you need to criminalize public displays of affection between homosexuals. You need to criminalize public discussion of homosexuality.
What you have chosen to do instead is to punish the children of homosexuals.
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
#315
I’m not worried about being politically correct. I don’t have to concede in issues like this because I’m afraid of people stripping me of my rights in the future. For me, right is right, and that’s what I’ll fight for. There may come a time when temple marriages are banned, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be performed. Homosexuals are looking for the state to support gay marriage. LDSaints are looking for God to support temple marriage. The difference is that God will never stop supporting temple marriage, but he never supported gay marriage. I don’t need the state to have a temple marriage, but I’ll fight for them to recognize it.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
#318
Homosexuals don’t have children. At least, they won’t have their adopted children sealed to them through temple ordinances.
The Church doesn’t ban discussion of adultery just because it’s immoral. In fact, we have holy scriptures that give us a good account of it. As for banning public display of affection between homosexuals, what displays? Kissing? Straight men kiss each other, hug each other, even hold hands in some cultures. They don’t have sex, though.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
re: 319
This isn’t about being politically correct. It is about being morally consistent. If you want the right to be able to follow the moral course which you believe God is leading you on, if you want the right to follow the religious leader of your choice, and not one which the government chooses for you, then you must allow others the same right. Other individuals believe that God has no problem with homosexual marriage, and other religious leaders believe God permits them to perform homosexual marriages. If we don’t permit them the same right to follow their chosen religious path, we are nothing more than hypocrites.
Comment by Derek — December 4, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Jon, homosexuals DO have children. And it is those children who are punished by denying gay couples equal civil protections. Gay parents who desire CIVIL marriage are not attempting to force you to seal them in temple marriage or seal their children to them (gay Mormons may have other issues they are addressing through ecclesiastical channels, but that’s not what is being discussed here).
Granting gay couples full and equal civil rights protections does not equate to forcing the LDS Church to grant them temple marriage. You simply cannot use one to justify the other.
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
And, incidentally, if homosexuals “don’t have children,” then you’d better call the newspapers, because a miracle occurred seven and one-half years ago.
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
#321
I agree with you in principle just like I believe in the 11th Article of Faith. That’s why the Church hasn’t outlawed Muslims from celebrating Ramadan, and so forth.
Where do you draw the line? If you believe that Thomas S. Monson is a real prophet, you know that while people can believe in homosexual marriage, it is still so wrong that it can’t be tolerated. This is one reason why in my first post I specified the kind of sin that leads to disciplinary action. Should homosexual acts be illegalized? Yes. Should we force people to cover up their shoulders? We don’t. Not even among LDSaints (in my experience). There’s nothing hypocritical in wanting something removed from society that is evil, even if others believe in it.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
#322
While I agree that taking children away from their homosexual legal guardians isn’t the best solution for the children, they never should have been placed there in the first place. Homosexual couples shouldn’t be raising children. A mother and a father should. Sometimes things happen and one parent has to do the job alone, but children should be brought up in a home with a mother and a father. Don’t you agree? There are few things more important than family, and Satan is trying hard to destroy it.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Jon, by all means, disfellowship gays who engage in same-gender relationships. Don’t allow them in your midst. Refuse them temple marriages and sealing of their children. Take away their Temple Recommend. Shun them. Discipline them in meetings with the Bishop. Kick them out of BYU. Assure them that they have no salvation and will not be rewarded in the future life.
But, just as you should not deny a straight divorced person the right to civil marriage, it is also wrong to deny civil marriage to gays. They are equal citizens of this country who pay taxes and contribute their fair share to the community and to the economy and deserve the same legal rights and protections as you do.
This is not a Mormon Nation. Therefore it is improper to make the laws of the land reflect Mormon doctrine if that doctrine would trample the legal civil rights of other citizens.
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
re: 324
Yes, there is hypocrisy in believing we should be allowed to use government to root out things which are evil to us, but protest if others use the government to root out us when they consider us evil.
I do not believe “homosexual marriage is so wrong it cannot be tolerated.” The prophet is not infallible; they have made policy errors in the past, and I believe they have done so now. I am willing to trust the prophet that homosexual marriage is wrong, and that the Church is morally justified in excommunicating people who participate in homosexual relationships. I firmly believe that the Church and its members have the right to enthusiastically and energetically use persuasion to convince people not to participate in such relationships, as D&C 121 encourages us to do in promoting righteousness. But when we resort to the force of law to compel people to conform to our moral beliefs, we succumb to unrighteous dominion, and destroy our moral authority.
Comment by Derek — December 4, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
No, I don’t agree. I am raising two beautiful children who were born from my body. My partner and I their PARENTS (not their “guardians”).
Studies show that children raised by two same-gender, loving, nurturing parents are equally as healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by two opposite-gender parents. There is no legal justification for preventing gay parents from raising their children, and therefore, there is no legal justification for denying those children equal civil rights to those enjoyed by their straight-parented peers.
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Derek - #327, yet another great post.
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
By the way, Jon, you contradicted yourself here, as earlier in this thread you stated:
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
#327
Then this has become an issue not necessarily over homosexual marriage, but whether or not you believe in the prophet. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Gospel you believe in. Well you can, but the point is that if there’s any hypocrisy, it’s in this belief. If prophetic counsel isn’t infallible, then what else isn’t true? The point of having God’s mouthpiece on Earth is that it is infallible. It’s one thing when a prophet makes some idle comment out of context, but it’s quite another when it comes as official direction from the First Presidency.
If you believe that the First Presidency has committed unrighteous dominion in this case, then why haven’t they been stripped of power, priesthood, or membership? God will not allow a prophet to lead us astray. Of course, that came from another prophet’s mouth, so could that be wrong? I believe in Priesthood authority.
I also oppose abortion, which many people view to be a moral issue. Am I exercising unrighteous dominion in opposing it and trying to force people to oppose it as well? The point is, that some moral issues should be enforced, because we know them to be wrong.
Lorian: do you mean you’re in a homosexual relationship? Studies also show an increased tendency towards homosexuality. But the point is that it’s a false presentation of family.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
#330
Not a contradiction. Many things are illegal which a right to privacy protects from detection. As LDSaints, we believe that the only place for sex is in marriage. It’d be impossible and impermissable to police everyone’s private situations. Marriage, however, carries the implication that the partners are engaging in sex. And so on.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
331,
I think you’ll find the answer to your question in John 14:26.
Comment by TD — December 4, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
The Gospel does not teach that we should utilize the courts to punish those whom we believe are sinners. As a matter of fact, St. Paul specifically urges believers to NOT take their disputes to court. There is nothing in the Gospel which suggests that believers should pass civil laws to impose religious beliefs upon the world around them.
Only if you do so on the grounds that your religion teaches that it is a sin. There are possibly non-religious arguments which might be employed, but I won’t go into that here because there is no need to turn this thread into a discussion of abortion rights.
I am gay, and am married to my partner of over 17.5 years. We have two children together.
No, studies do not show that children of gay parents have an increased likelihood of being gay, any more than studies show that children of heterosexual parents have an “increased likelihood” (as opposed to children raised by same-gender parents) of being heterosexual. Parenting does not make you gay, anymore than learning that gay-parented families exist makes children gay. This is non-scientific silliness.
As to my family being a “false presentation of family,” I’m really not at all sure what you mean by that. We are as much a family as any other family.
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
I’m planning a blog post on the issue of morality and legislation, in which I’ll address the issue of abortion. I’ll probably submit it to be posted here, so I’ll refrain from addressing it now.
The restored Gospel does not include the doctrine of infallibility, but rather one of personal revelation through the confirmation of the spirit. If you choose to believe in infallibility and blind faith, we have no common ground for discussion.
Comment by Derek — December 4, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Hi Lorian and other gay brothers and sisters, LDS or not:
As a card-carrying LDS, I am so sorry. Please know that we don’t all share the beliefs of other LDS like Jon. I feel embarrassed and in pain when I encounter these kinds of attitudes (that gays shouldn’t have kids, that gay behavior should be criminalized, etc.). I can only imagine how you guys feel.
I HATED prop 8, and had I been in CA, would have voted against it. I would hope that if we were next door neighbors, our kids could play together and we could go out for frozen yogurt once in awhile. You know, like the brothers and sisters we are.
Comment by janescott — December 4, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Incidentally, this is very true, but the criterion upon which we base this is not a nebulous “knowing” that something is wrong. The reason why we know something is wrong and must be outlawed is because that thing impinges upon the rights of another person. Murder is wrong because it impedes another persons right to live. Theft is wrong because it impedes another person’s right to own and control his own property. We ban sex with minors because they are not able to give informed consent; therefore committing sex acts upon them impedes their right to govern the sexual use of their bodies, regardless of whether or not the child makes an objection to the molestation.
There are as many examples of this as there are laws (or nearly so, since a few bad apples, like Prop 8, have been passed which impinge upon the civil rights of others with no secular justification whatsoever). You can’t speed because you put others property and lives at risk. You can’t blow up bombs in your backyard for the same reason. You can’t deface public property because it belongs to everyone, not just to you.
There must be a solid, non-religious justification for our society’s laws. This means that many of the beliefs of religious groups WILL qualify to also be presented in our legal codes because, like murder, they represent a univerally acknowledged harm and deprivation of an individual’s basic human rights. But other things, such as religious codes against eating shellfish, or beliefs which mandate a number of specific periods of prescribed prayers throughout the day, while we may believe that they are “morally correct,” do not qualify for legal codes with civil or criminal penalties.
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Thank you, Jane. Your kindness touches my heart. :bighug:
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
You know, probably the best strategy the gay community could have used in the Prop 8 debate would have been to get behind it 100% and vote in favor of it, knowing that only if it passed (which it did, but by the barest of margins; 21 more “no” votes in each voting precinct in the state would have swung the outcome the other direction) would it be subject to review by the California Supreme Court if a lawsuit were brought up to protest its passing.
Had it not passed, I’m sure the “Yes on 8″ people would have resubmitted it as a voter initiative over and over until it did pass. I’m convinced that the SC will do the same thing with Prop 8 that they did with Prop 22, and they will thereby kill it once and for all.
Comment by Mark N. — December 4, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
I’ve heard this opinion expressed a few times, Mark, but I have to disagree. If Brown v. BOA had been able to be overturned by a ballot measure, the damage and harm to African American citizens would have been devastating. While it probably would have been replayed through the courts yet again and the ballot measure overturned, a great deal more harm and emotional violence would have come to the African American community in the process.
Nothing which tramples the rights of citizens can be viewed as a “positive.”
Massachusetts’ gay marriage rights were granted by a decision of their Supreme Court, but in order to revoke marriage rights for gays, the opponents to gay marriage had to push a measure through the MA legislature. They were unable to do so, and the right for gays to marry in MA still stands. That’s how it should have been here. Our legislature would NEVER have passed Prop 8, had it been up to them. The legislature has TWICE passed laws legalizing full marriage rights for gays here in CA and TWICE been vetoed by Arnold. How much more should it have to take? Two branches of state government, the Legislature and the Judicial, agree that gay couples should have full civil marriage rights. I’m mystified as to why we do not.
Comment by Lorian — December 4, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
In the end, the decision to support or oppose Prop 8 hinges on whether or not you believe in the Restoration and modern prophets. God’s ways are not always known to us, but he must see something coming which we don’t.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
Lorian - All theoretical debates change when they become personal. I’m sorry, if I’ve offended you, but I not only stand by everything I’ve said, but I believe it to be true.
While I don’t live in California, I voted for a similar amendment in Florida, and when I move to Sacramento in May, I’ll continue to vote for such legislation.
For LDSaints, some things are just to hard for them to hear, and they fall away. For me, this isn’t an issue in which I feel superior, because down the road I may be asked to give up something that I’ve long believed in.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
From Elder Maxwell:
Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had ‘never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life’.
This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ! … Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. … This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.
Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened. … Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel.
There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, ’summer is nigh’ (Matt. 24:32). Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat!
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Jon, again, you seem to embrace a very narrow definition of “faithful.” It is indeed possible to believe in the prophets and in the gospel and still reject their stance on abortion or gay marriage. I feel sorry for you that you are so closed-minded as to not see any other possibility for disagreement on the part of us who disagree, than “Well, you obviously don’t believe.”
I would remind you that judging other people’s righteousness or level of belief is against our comment policy. I would urge you to please open your mind and your heart and understand that personal prayer and revelation and free will mean quite a bit in the gospel - particularly to those of us who aren’t as willing to “toe the line” simply to conform with something that our own personal prayer and revelation and free will tells us is wrong.
Comment by Quimby — December 4, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
#344
No, you cannot believe in the prophets and in the gospel and still reject their stance on abortion or gay marriage. This is one reason I posted Elder Maxwell’s quote above.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Jon, it must be very nice to have such a simplistic black and white view of the world. I can only assume you’re about 12 now. Perhaps in a few years you’ll understand the concept of complexity.
Comment by Quimby — December 4, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
#346
It is.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
re: 345
That is not accurate. The Church allows members to disagree on both those issues (in terms of how one votes) and still remain in good standing, and even hold a TR. There are plenty TR holding members in the Bloggernacle who openly disagreed with the Church’s position on Prop 8, for example.
You may find the Bloggernacle a troubling place to hang out, Jon. There’s plenty of nuance and uncertainty in here.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — December 4, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
#348
Thank you.
Comment by Jon — December 4, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
Jon Reading your comments leads me to believe that homosexuality is now gone all because of this vote.
I could care less about Prop 8. I see that nothing has changed. I live in Idaho and we passed this ammendment years ago and still gay people walk around happy with wedding rings and call each other spouse.
So what is next? Where does the church go next? Do they stand aside and allow or even endorse civil unions in Utah?
Comment by Bob W — December 4, 2008 @ 10:02 pm